Hacker News Reader

Comment by 93po | Hacker News Reader

I'm satisfied but it's only because I make more than twice the median household income by myself with no kids and can work remotely at an easy job. I don't know how 90% is satisfied with so much less.

View on HN

Because median household income is on the rise, jobless rates in females are on decline, 8+ million Americans off food stamp dependence, and consumer confidence is at an 18 year high.

People outside of Silicon Valley and Seattle really need to understand that this number is so high not only because of them (like me and you in this case, having great jobs and being single) but also because the average American worker in Buhl, Idaho is seeing their wages increase and their quality of life get better.

Super rich Hollywood people can't understand how you are happy without hanging out with models and celebrities at your Oceanview house.

It’s not even true - they may be _less_ likely to be satisfied, for reasons tht you may find ridiculoous (but are not to them). I believe satisfaction comes mostly from within, not necessarily with what you have. It’s largely on you to observe either what you have - or what you don’t.

Yes exactly. Satisfaction is significantly affected by your expectations. If your expectations change, then satisfaction changes as well.

Good for you, it’s great to hear. I _love_ being a parent, and I love working in an open-plan office, so it’s great that we can both be happy despite wanting different things from life. Maybe the common thread is being paid well, but even then, I know people on minimum wage that seem very satisfied.

The no child comment was an implication about the cost of children, not that they make people unhappy (though statistically they do)

Other studies have shown that happiness does not increase with income after the point at which people can afford to be comfortable.

Consider Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs: income can help you with several parts of the hierarchy, but it cannot buy all of them.

This is wrong. The studies have shown that there is a point past which more money yields rapidy diminishing happiness returns. That is different from not yielding any additional return at all.

People are using it in the context of "should I take a job that I like more which pays X or should I take a job I like less that pays 2X"

If X is 10k you should go with the 2X job. If X is 150k you should go with the 1x job

If you are thinking about this highly-cited study, that is not what they concluded

https://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489

> We infer that beyond about $75,000/y, there is no improvement whatever in any of the three measures of emotional well-being.

Although, even if we assume your assertion is true, it's a distinction without a difference in the context of the above thread.

Satisfaction is largely a relative thing. People notice if their situation is improving / staying the same / getting worse. They don't so much care about their absolute ranking in society.

Also note that, as another reply mentioned, this has little to do with actual monetary values.

If you didn’t get a raise, that sucks. If your friends got laid off... well, then keeping your salary is great. If no one got laid off but you were able to buy a new x and none of your friends were, regardless of income changes, you’re still going to feel better. It’s “keeping up with the Joneses”.

This is a really good point that I also think has something to do with "would you rather gain 50 dollars or avoid losing 50 dollars, most people would avoid the loss".

If you are not "losing" anything in daily life, but also not gaining much, you may be inclined to feel better or a least more optimistic.

Because it’s always about change in income, not absolute numbers. I guarantee you someone who went from making $50k to $100k in a year will report being happier than a guy who made a steady $1m each year.

The first thing you list is money. For others, it would be family, friends.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com