
Don’t Indulge. Be Happy. - mjfern
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/opinion/sunday/dont-indulge-be-happy.html?hp&gwh=F0EB60505D64CCD9B64E5EA831001D3B
======
greggman
My perspective is $75k a year (or whatever your number is) is all fine and
dandy until something bad happens.

I'm sure there are far far worse stories than this but for example, my father,
an eletrical engineer, left a job at a big company for a small start up at 50.
The company went bankrupt 10 years later. His gamble to make it big failed. At
60 no one would hire him. (a) they expected him to retire at 65. (b) health
insurance premiums are like 6x to 10x for the company for him vs someone 20-35
years younger.

So, he now drives a delivery van at 67. No retirement for him. Let's hope he
has no serious medical bills.

My point is of course that $75k or whatever is fine day to day but you need a
lot more to survive retirement.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/>

At 47 myself I find it a much harder choice to choose a job with less pay
knowing that I risk the same fate as my father. I'm not saying I won't take
that risk. I might. But it's not as easy as choosing happiness today for less
money. Today effects tomorrow. It might be better to try to find happiness in
the higher paying job so that you can be happy for longer than to trade short
term happiness now and possible suffering later.

Yea, there's no guarantee either way. YMMV etc. Again, all I'm saying is it's
over simplifying to say the only thing to consider is "will this life style
make me happy today even though I'd be making less money"

~~~
GuiA
The more I read this sort of insights, the happier I am to not be a US
citizen.

~~~
FrojoS
What are you then?

All my (little) retirement money got either paid into the German or Swiss
system. And no, I don't think my retirement is safer than that of my US
friends.

Frankly, my plan is to just never retire. But of course that's just the naive
idea of a 20-something.

~~~
flyinRyan
They're probably talking about the whole "let's hope he never gets sick" part.

~~~
GFischer
Indeed. Here in Uruguay, in a similar circumstance as greggman described you
might get a U$ 400 pension (once a month), which is below subsistence level...
but you're entitled to the same healthcare as the 98% of the population, up to
and including expensive cancer or AIDS treatments. (the top 2% do have
additional levels of coverage available by spending more money).

~~~
krschultz
In the US, at age 67, he should be getting Social Security and Medicare.
That's a pension and healthcare. It might not be enough, but it's something.

Social Security will pay ~$1,800 a month assuming a birth date in 1945 and a
maximum salary of $65,000.

Medicare covers most things - including serious medical. My grandfather and
grand mother both had massive hospital bills due to Alzheimer's covered by
Medicare. The major exception is nursing home care - that is not covered by
Medicare.

[1]
[http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/benefitcalculators.ht...](http://www.socialsecurity.gov/planners/benefitcalculators.htm)

[2] [http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/medicare-
basics/medicare-...](http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/medicare-
basics/medicare-benefits/medicare-benefits-overview.aspx)

~~~
GFischer
Do those cover "serious medical bills"?

If so, greggman's argument is no longer valid.

~~~
flyinRyan
Medicare is not bad, but that only counts for people who are retired. In this
specific case the OP might be wrong about the dangers to their dad, but for
most people this is a huge scare.

------
aggronn
Lets forget the standard problems with measuring happiness and comparing it
between different populations. There are issues there, but lets pretend like
thats an accepted, valid practice that distills real truth. We're also going
to pretend that people are completely honest when they fill these surveys out.
What about some of these examples they use?

The chocolate example: The conclusion completely ignores the utility of having
had chocolate on each day before the end of the week. If the result, that the
marginal utility of a piece of chocolate a week later was less for people who
had a lot of chocolate in between, surprised you, you've forgotten what
marginal utility is. Do I need to really mention what's wrong with this
comparison? Do people only enjoy chocolate on the weekend?

The children with goldfish: Imagine you earned a salary in NY strip steak as
part of an experiment. Would you consider that experiment useful in drawing
conclusions about money and utility or happiness?

The money in an envelope example: I'm not going to say anything about this,
because I said in my intro that I'm going to ignore self-reporting bias caused
by confronting someone about whether they acted ethically or not. (hint: if
someone trusts you to do something and you don't do it, you may be less happy
than someone who did do it--especially it is consistent with social
expectations).

I don't mean to dispute the point the article is making, but honestly, after
seeing the substance, I'm less inclined to believe it than I was beforehand.

~~~
sophacles
When I read the article, I suspected there may be some ideological (mis)uses
of the content. It seems to me that there will be a very positive reaction to
it from who are more collectivist/socialist/liberal oriented, and a negative
one from the indivudualist/objectivist/conservative oriented. Making some
(potentially incorrect) assumptions from your language (choice of terms
largely), I would guess you are in the later group.

I think that the strong potential for ideological differences to erupt in a
flame war in this thread is high, and therefore want to suggest perhaps we
look at the actual research mentioned before attacking it as reported in the
New York Times (a place we largely deride for awful science reporting in most
other cases), rather than make assumptions about it based on our ideological
gut reactions to the conclusions.

~~~
aggronn
I would contend that the piece was inherently ideological, and the editors saw
where it was problematic. It is the sunday opinions page. I reckon its purpose
is to solicit sultry conversation.

------
doktrin
Since the NYT does throw in the "$75,000 for happyness" study results, I feel
obligated to mention the WSJ's adjustment for cost-of-living.

No surprise, of course, that New York itself stands out as being a
particularly difficult place in which to be happy :

[http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/07/what-salary-
buys-h...](http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/07/what-salary-buys-
happiness-in-your-city/)

Note that this is not directly related to the central tenet of the article,
which I actually found quite interesting.

~~~
_delirium
I wonder if that direct adjustment is actually the proper way to do it. That's
implying a hypothesis that the money-happiness relationship varies due to COL,
but is constant once adjusted for purchasing-power parity. But it seems at
least plausible that the relationship is a different one. I'd be interested if
anyone's directly studied what the money-happiness correlation is in NYC
versus, say, Omaha. I wouldn't be surprised to see a deviation in either
direction; perhaps New Yorkers need _more_ than the COL-adjusted equivalent to
be happy, or perhaps they need less. May even vary among sub-groups.

In my own case, I've found that the amount of money I need to be satisfied
with my income tends to scale less than linearly with COL. In higher-COL
places I spend a bigger proportion of my income on rent, and do more low-cost
entertainment, in part because more low-cost entertainment is available. For
example, I've lived in both Houston and Santa Cruz, and I was quite happy
doing a lot of free and cheap things in Santa Cruz, with its great beaches,
hiking, etc. In Houston, I had to spend money for entertainment.

------
anothermachine
Cost of living varies by a factor of 3x or more across the USA. This fact is
ignored every time the meaningless "$75,000" figure is trotted around.

~~~
FrojoS
Exactly. And as other have pointed out here, its ironic that of all places a
newspaper could be from, the New York Times ignores this fact.

------
apaitch
Most people want to get the promotions and the money, but I think it's not
only to buy the materialistic stuff they want. For many white-collar workers
it's about the prestige, the status, the self-validation, and the respect
these things tend to bring about. I think the thesis of this article applies
to these "emotional" indulgences as well. I'd say if you respect yourself and
have a sense of inner peace AND you acknowledge that you don't NEED to go from
$75,000 to $175,000 (though of course it'd be nice) it gives you a kind of
freedom from the shackles of what goes on at many a workplace. You can develop
your skills because you enjoy getting better, do good work because you like
what you do, and often get a promotion and more money as a byproduct without
having to focus on it. That's one of the good things about the programming
field :)

With regard to the "giving", I wonder what theories there are about why many
people feel good when giving things up to benefit others. Is it just a
societal/cultural thing, influenced by religions?

~~~
techiferous
> With regard to the "giving", I wonder what theories there are about why many
> people feel good when giving things up to benefit others.

Imagine two cultural scenarios: one where everyone is looking out for
themselves and helping no one, and another where people are genuinely
concerned with each other and eager to help when needed. Which culture would
you want to live in?

I think we tend to by default project our motivations onto others (especially
in the absence of data). So if we are primarily selfish in our motivations, we
think the people around us are selfish. So my guess is that being generous
makes us feel like the world is a generous place.

Also, our parents probably taught us that sharing with others is good. So we
get a little psychological "stroke" of affirmation about our inner goodness by
being generous.

~~~
sophacles
Regarding your post and the parent post: humans are primates, and in amost all
primate species a social hierarchy exists, suggesting this is more than social
accident when it comes to humans. So I see truth in both statements about
giving -- helping others is always an act of power, the deepness (or flatness)
of the hierarchy, and the perceived motivation and rewards (implied or
conferred social status) may differ, but fundamentally helping others is an
act of hierarchal positioning, and in most cases one that positively affects
your position (or relative position anyway), so of course it makes one feel
good - the reward centers of our brains are set up to be happy with better
position.

That being said, I would still prefer the society where everyone helped each
other out as, and it was a way to maintain status quo in the hierarchy rather
than some act of "charity" (with the implications of 'I am your better by
helping you out').

~~~
mattgreenrocks
> fundamentally helping others is an act of hierarchal positioning

So you started with the idea that everything's about power, and then came to
the insight that charity is also about power? If this were actually true, we'd
have too many people willing to help. As you said, they just want to maximize
their position in the hierarchy, right? In the volunteer organizations I've
been in, I've _never_ seen too many volunteers. (I'm in the 25-34 age group in
a power-hungry East Coast city where people take themselves extremely
seriously.)

Charity feels good because in our sacrifice we enter into another's needs on
their behalf. This forces us to get over ourselves temporarily. I don't think
it to be socialization; there's something more at work here.

------
stevenwei
Unfortunately this article doesn't really differentiate between income versus
savings, which I think is relevant to the discussion.

It makes sense to me that once you reach a reasonable salary level (such as
the $75,000 threshold mentioned), that any additional increase in salary
doesn't really affect happiness all that much, because at the end of the day
it's still _tied to your job_. If you don't come to work every day, you don't
get paid. And if you have a family to support, you can't really arbitrarily
take a one (or many) years off to pursue other interests you may have in life.
So while doubling your income level to $150,000 might marginally improve your
happiness, the effect is limited because you're still (more or less) having to
work the same amount.

I suspect that the next threshold has less to do with salary, and more to do
with having enough of a savings such that you no longer have to go to work
every day. Now, a lot more options are open to you. You can choose to continue
working if you want, but you can also choose to stop, and instead spend time
with your family, travel the world, write a book, or whatever else you might
want. At that level, you also don't have to worry about serious medical bills
or other unforeseen emergencies destroying your savings.

------
ZanderEarth32
I am currently fine with the amount I make, even though it's pretty low for my
field. I've designed my lifestyle around what I can support financially, not
the other way around.

Money rarely makes people happy. Stuff that money can buy is where they find
happiness.

To me, more money equals security for the future. I often struggle to buy new
things, constantly rationalizing why I should save rather than spend. These
types of transactions don't make me happy.

I do find happiness spending money on trips or events though, as the article
indicates.

~~~
randomdata
I only spend a fraction of my current income, but I still seek more because
those increases make me feel like I'm improving in my career and as a person,
which is what really matters to me. It may be foolish to think that way, but
it seems to be the metric our society uses.

~~~
ZanderEarth32
If the amount of money you make is a reflection of improvement in oneself then
our society is flawed. It makes sense that the amount of money you earn is a
reflection of your skills, even though I would argue that having the freedom
to choose what you work on is more of a reflection of your skills. This type
of mentality where money=self worth is a misguided mentality when looking at
life as a whole.

What about activities where there is opportunity for improvement but are not
rewarded financially? Like playing a sport non-professionally, improving your
cooking abilities, improving your relationship with others, etc.? Can
improvement not be measured since money plays no role?

~~~
randomdata
_Can improvement not be measured since money plays no role?_

I do believe you seek some kind of return in everything you do. Your job's
return is money, but it doesn't necessarily have to be money.

Sports, relationships, etc. also have returns, but not in the form of money.
If, for example, it is the adrenaline rush that draws you to sports, that
feeling should increase as you improve. That is your payback to show that you
are getting better.

So no, I don't think money necessarily has to play a role, but I think there
needs to be something to show yourself that you are improving. Money just
happens to be what the measure used in the workplace, as that is the primary
reason for working.

------
zdw
Giving up stuff intentionally is not a new concept - whether it be the fasting
traditions of western religion, the periodic avoidance of pleasure of stoic
philosophers, or recognition of desire as a distraction of the buddhists
(probably the most extreme of the examples) - it's been tried and found to be
quite positive before.

------
nhangen
Meh, I don't know if I agree at all.

I'm in the ballpark of the given number, and yes, I'm relatively happy with
how much I make and what I can do with it, but I'm not going to stop trying to
make more.

I want to make things, and money is a sign that the things I'm making are
valuable to people. Money is a signal that tells me I'm on the right path.

Additionally, I'd love to take a few years off and spend more time with my
family. Being tethered to a job, regardless of how much it pays, will not
allow me to do that. Making a shitload of cash will.

Money may not buy happiness, but I find happiness much more attainable when
I'm not living paycheck to paycheck and/or not knowing how I'm going to pay
for dinner.

~~~
w0utert
> Additionally, I'd love to take a few years off and spend more time with my
> family. Being tethered to a job, regardless of how much it pays, will not
> allow me to do that. Making a shitload of cash will.

This pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned. We all have only one shot
at life on this planet, so unless you're comfortable spending all of your
productive years working for just enough money to stay afloat, you'll want to
save up as much money as you can, to buy yourself the freedom to make radical
changes to the course of your life when the time comes that's what's necessary
to 'increase happiness'.

I always get a little annoyed when people say or write stuff such as 'money
does not buy you happiness'. In our modern, western societies, it actually
_does_ buy you happiness, provided you have enough of it, and don't blow it
all on materialistic things. All those quasi-romantical perspectives how it's
immaterial things like health, family and friends that make you happy are
missing the point. It's not about money, that's just a medium of wealth, but
about the opportunities you have for yourself and your loved ones to enjoy
life. If you're lucky enough to have good health, family, friends _and_ the
financial means to make the most out of the privilege of having all that, you
can be much happier than when you have to miss either one of those.

I realize that this may sound awfully shallow and materialistic, but it's just
my observation of how this world turns. Sure enough you can be happy without
being wealthy, but in the end, almost everyone would prefer being happy _and_
wealthy, for the simple fact that it provides opportunities that are simply
unattainable if you're happy but broke.

------
lylemckeany
I don't think that most people wish to make more money only so they can buy
more things. This may have been true for the baby boomer generation, but
peoples' attitudes towards money has changed quite a bit recently. When the
realization that owning a home wasn't the ATM machine people always thought it
would be, that changed most everyone's perspective on money.

I would argue that people wish to make at least enough money where they aren't
struggling from paycheck to paycheck. That way they can easily afford to put
food on the table, put clothes on their kids' backs, pay for their kids to go
to college, and go on a family trip every once in awhile.

------
StacyC
All other things being equal, I suppose more money is better than less. But
ultimately, happiness is a decision we make every day—or not.

For me, a mindfulness meditation practice has made this daily decision much
easier. I need so little to be happy, and find so much everywhere to be happy
about.

We get what we expect, so expect the good.

~~~
potatolicious
> _" But ultimately, happiness is a decision we make every day—or not."_

This strikes me as a position that can only be taken by the already-fortunate.
If you don't me saying so, it reads like "let them eat cake". It's easy for us
bourgeois, upper-middle, people with relatively few worries to talk down to
the poor "but can't you just _choose_ to be happy and not sweat the little
stuff?!" "take some time off and meditate on your happiness!"

But when you don't know where your next rent check is coming from, how you
will put food on the table _next week_ for your loved ones, and you are one
flat tire away from missing work, getting fired, and complete ruin...
happiness really isn't a decision you make every day.

There is a bar at which the basic needs of life are no longer constant
worries, and a person _can_ actually take the time to reflect and breathe.
Most of this country is below that bar.

------
mjleino
Interesting paper on the subject: Dunn et al. - If money doesn't make you
happy, then you probably aren't spending it right
[http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WIL...](http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%20\(2011\).pdf)

~~~
GFischer
The NYT article is credited to ELIZABETH DUNN and MICHAEL NORTON, so one of
the authors of the paper participated in the news article.

------
big_data
For those people facing financial ruin, having more money eliminates the
immediate fear caused by not having enough. Once life's necessities are taken
care of though, what else can money really buy? Wouldn't happiness plateau at
some point?

~~~
Domenic_S
It can buy a jetski. Have you ever seen an unhappy person riding a jetski?

~~~
ftwinnovations
Thank you Mr Tosh for that. And so everyone can enjoy the whole bit:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RoLdkgjKhs>

~~~
big_data
"He’s dead for a reason. He was a show-off, and he tried to spray us." - the
dead cousin isn't happy. Neither is his Mom. Classic stuff!

------
equilibrium
Diminishing marginal utility

