
Money buys even more happiness than it used to - elorant
https://theconversation.com/money-buys-even-more-happiness-than-it-used-to-141766
======
411111111111111
I had a pretty substantial increase in salary about 13 month ago and can
confirm: it increased my happiness _a lot_.

I'm absolutely certain that another increase is that magnitude would still
increase it immeasurably. Further increased however would have significant
diminishing returns and drop off entirely at around triple my current wage I
think .

I find this very interesting, considering that the average CEO gets
significantly more than I would get after tripling my current wage.

But I guess that just shows that ppl that fill the role of a CEO are a
different breed. Personally, I'm glad I don't feel entitled nor particularly
want so much more money then my colleagues. And honestly, I have trouble
feeling any empathy toward them at times, considering how they usually behave.

I do think there will eventually be abloody falling out between our classes.
Times have changed however, and I doubt workers will be able to 'win' anymore.

At least I'm already over 30, so I likely won't have to live long in the
shithole this place will become.

~~~
elorant
An average CEO though could be spending three times what you spend for
clothes. I used to have a conversation like this some twenty years ago when I
worked at a big multinational company and one of my coworkers at that time was
earning like 3 times my salary. His expenses for doing his work were a lot
more than mine. He was in marketing so appearances did matter, I worked at
programming and could go to work with jeans and a t-shirt. That's the thing
with the corporate world, the higher in the ladder you are, the more of a
presence you have to preserve.

~~~
ggggtez
Let's not be so foolish as to think that CEOs actually spend all their money.
Even the average silicon valley engineer is dumping a large portion of their
pay into investments.

Bill Gates has so much money, he can afford to eradicate diseases off the face
of the planet. I don't care how much he spent on his silk tie, you're not even
talking about the same ballpark. Expenses mean _nothing_ at that level.

------
vmception
I've seen this countless times.

I think a better comparison would be to oxygen: you know when you don't have
it. You will be concerned about running out of it.

Having an abundance of oxygen doesn't buy you happiness. It buys you the
ability to be happy, or content. An unlimited supply of oxygen has diminishing
returns on your ability to do anything additional, but fortunately you have
the opportunity to, and you don't even think about it, compared to people
wondering if they are about to get triaged out of a ventilator.

~~~
bradenb
I think this is a really cool analogy, but I feel it falls flat when it comes
to true wealth. There’s a big difference between not needing to worry about
money to live a normal life and having so much money that your life is a
series of experiences that would be considered life-altering to most of the
world.

~~~
random314
Can you give an example from the series of life altering experiences

~~~
Viliam1234
Imagine having enough money that you don't need to work a single day in your
life.

Now imagine all cool stories your friends told you about what they did during
vacation, including the expensive ones. This is how your average day could
look like. Even if the money couldn't bring better experience (which it
definitely could), it could still bring you the good experience more often.
Most of the interesting things you can imagine, you could simply do them one
by one, without taking long breaks; experience in one year as much novelty as
other people do during their lifetime.

Altering your life would actually be easier, because if you'd decide you want
to spend the next few months e.g. meditating in Tibet, you would simply go. No
concerns about travel costs, or the impact such break could take on your
career. Wanna try something? Simply do it. Change your mind and wanna try
something else? Do that, too. Repeat as many times as you want. If you have a
goal that requires cooperation of other people (e.g. you'd like to design a
computer game, but you don't have the skills to do it alone), just pay someone
to play along. You want to learn something? Hire the best tutors. Etc.

~~~
vmception
but this doesn't take _that_ much money. run the numbers yourself.

Even with today's poorest ever interest rate environment, $10mm in US
treasuries is still earning you $133,000 a year in coupon payments and is not
taxable by states or local municipalities. Leaving it with 24% taxed by Feds,
before you come up with any deductions.

You already own a house outright, so 30% of that isn't going to housing.

$100,000 free and clear to play around with and occasionally buy food, every
year, for the next 30 years (while your bonds also keep increasing in value),
with both a home to always borrow against, and your $10mm in treasuries to
borrow against if you really wanted to.

If you aren't flying private, airlines have already subsidized all your
flights with an infinite amount of points.

If you are flying private, your netjets membership is already paid for, so you
aren't really paying for that either, its an asset not an expense.

And once you get to Tibet you aren't paying for anything or using any money,
because its so cheap.

This isn't billionaire status, this isn't Bezos status. This isn't even top
100 wealthiest, top 200, top 500, this is top 30,000,000.

You can get VIP treatment at Cannes Film Festival, and buy tables in Ibiza and
St Tropez all summer, or pay $10,000 to an enterpriser for basic
infrastructure at Burning Man once a year.

The reason I point this out is that its not rare enough to really make up
these scenarios for. People do it for some time, and then they find something
more fulfilling to do that keeps them in one place.

The abundance of money, like an abundance of oxygen, has diminishing ability
to do anything for you.

~~~
Viliam1234
If you want to travel a lot -- either because you like traveling, or because
you want to meet many interesting people over the world -- you will need to
pay for hotels. In some places it could be like $100 a night. So if you have
$100,000 a year, a third of that budget would already go to hotels. Okay,
sounds doable.

The next life-improving expense would be to hire a personal assistant. Someone
who would e.g. book the hotels and the airplane, so that I don't even have to
think about the boring technicalities. With kids, I would probably also want a
babysitter. And both of them need a room in that hotel, too. Seems like I have
already exceeded the $100,000 a year. But maybe $200,000 or $300,000 would do.

Okay, I admit that at this point I am mostly out of ideas. I imagine I could
use more than one personal assistant, e.g. one to take care about my everyday
life (things I don't want to think about), and another to help me with my
projects (things I want to think about, but prefer if someone else does the
difficult research). More generally, in some situations being able to pay
people to do stuff for me could save me time.

Above cca $500,000 a year I don't really have good ideas.

~~~
vmception
It's a fun exercise, my Amex Platinum concierge has been good enough in doing
organizing for me, presenting me options for hard to get arrangements.

Both airline and hotels were mostly free using points and status.

I would only be booking for myself and only maybe a companion as the reality
is that I have likely another companion in the destination. No kids, by
design. The luxury wore off pretty quick and hostels were inherently more
social, so the fixed dollar cost again dropped by an order of magnitude, with
decompressing - and the improved possibility of privacy with a companion I may
have met earlier in the week - happening at hotels on the weekend.

This is the first year that $10mm in a 30 year bond would _only_ yield
$133,000. Last year the record low rates would yield $300,000. I would
probably speculate with some of it, hoping for a 10-bagger or 20-bagger. If
not, oh well, wait for the next coupon!

~~~
sjtindell
Where are you seeing this number of a 30% return ($300,000) on bonds?

------
michaelbrave
at the lowest level money can give you safety, from starvation, from
homelessness. The removal of that fear from a slight increase of income would
be liberating for someone in that kind of situation.

A level above that would give freedom, that's what "F-you money" is all about.
Having that means no longer putting up with bad situations like an employer
asking you to do something illegal, it means being able to prioritize family,
and it would allow for time to pursue new skills and hobbies that could open
new opportunities.

Step past that and now more money would give you the ability to do things with
people. Want to take a trip with friends, now it's possible. Thoughtful gifts,
done. The ability to attend a conference that allows you to make connections
in your industry, there it is. This could also be the difference between
community college or a famous university.

All of these things, lack of fear, increase of freedom, increase of
opportunity are all things that would make people happier. I think the saying
that it doesn't bring happiness always was one of the cultural lies we tell.

------
peterburkimsher
I've sometimes heard the following: "How much money do you need to be happy?"
"10% more."

But how much money does it cost to make somebody else happy?

It costs money to not argue with the housemate stealing your dish soap, or the
person who lost your spare phone while they were using it to play games, or
who used the communal office coffee machine without paying the weekly fee.

It's cheap to not fight. Maybe only $10 of soap. Giving even more freely by
sharing food, offering rides, or welcoming strangers (CS, BeWelcome) builds
even more trust. People don't like to receive gifts, and they'll want to give
back even more. When they offer to pay you back, that's when you can ask them
to pay it forward to communal expenses. (I got the phone back, by the way)

Money can buy friends: not by showing off, but by giving. And friendship
brings happiness.

------
bko
The article conflates money with income. It could be that people with higher
paying jobs find more satisfaction from their work which brings up their
happiness levels. As a software engineer I am both relatively well paid and
find great satisfaction with my work and life in general.

To tease out the difference between work satisfaction and income, I would like
to see information on post transfer levels of wealth. Is someone making $30k a
year from a salary equally as happy as someone bringing in 15k a year and 15k
in transfer payments?

~~~
ggggtez
> It could be that people with higher paying jobs find more satisfaction from
> their work

So you should expect that happiness levels would remain constant despite
paying lower wages for the same job. They don't. So your hypothesis is bunk.

Imagine living on $15k a year total. I don't care how much you like your job,
you probably wouldn't even be able to live in your city without working a
second job at that rate. Now you're working two jobs just to make ends meet...
Do you really think you'd be as happy just from the intrinsic joy of sitting
at a desk?

------
econcon
I make €8000 euros per month after tax, working 3 hours a day - it has
considerably good effect on my life and I've more time to explore new problems
where I can make more money. If I was trapped in a job, I could never look for
new opportunities

~~~
deepakkarki
Interesting, what is it that you do? Are you a consultant or do you run your
own business or something else? Just curious!

~~~
econcon
I left the software space and I now make and sell filament:
[https://medium.com/endless-filament/make-your-filament-at-
ho...](https://medium.com/endless-filament/make-your-filament-at-home-for-
cheap-6c908bb09922)

------
kingnothing
I'd love to see this adjusted for cost of living, perhaps by using the Big Mac
Index. $160k in SF gets you a 1 bedroom apartment; $160k in Idaho gets you a
mansion.

~~~
unpolloloco
Where can I get a 1br in SF for only $160k???

Solid point though. There are plenty of regions where you can live quite
comfortably (and save for retirement even!) on wages that would leave you
homeless in the bay area...

~~~
kingnothing
I was referring to annual income like the article, not the house price.

------
covidworrier
... Less happiness is available for free now?

------
begemotz
"buys" suggest causation.. sensationalized bs from someone who definitely
knows better.

~~~
ggggtez
Money buys food to eat, a home in a safe neighborhood, a night out with
friends, nice clothes for dating, an education, etc etc etc. Even if you are
discussing depression and mental illness, money buys you therapy, medication,
etc etc.

Get out of here with your idea that happiness is some magical thing that money
can't buy. Go talk to a homeless person and ask them if money would improve
their lives.

~~~
fragmede
Go talk to penniless lottery winners who've burn through all of their money,
discovered most of their friends were only in it for the money, and are just
as (un)happy as before they won the lottery, if not worse off. Go talk to
homeless people that have made it off the streets, and while there are obvious
quality of life improvements to not living on the streets, far less obvious is
the things that people _lose_ when they get off the streets. There's a sense
of community that the ex-homeless sometimes lament.

Money means you can _afford_ therapy. Severe mental illness means it may not
be the money itself that's the barrier to being successfully treated. Having
money _does_ mean it's not the money itself that's the barrier - spending the
money on yourself may be a barrier, however!)

Money _doesn 't_ buy happiness. It entirely fair to point out that it's a
helluva lot easier to be happy if you're not destitute. But let's also not
pretend that there aren't rich people that are bored, lonely, and sad.

~~~
ggggtez
> go talk to penniless lottery winners

You are just proving my point. They have no money.

To buy happiness you need money. It's obvious on the face of it. Do people who
were rich in the past and could buy all the food they could eat... suddenly no
longer need to eat at all? Or because they used to live in a nice house, they
no longer need shelter when they are old?

No one is saying that it's impossible to have a bad day just because you have
a dollar in your pocket.

