Money buys even more happiness than it used to
theconversation.com
theconversation.com
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.
1. You can always take it all and leave. The CEO can take more. 2. The CEO is more insulated from the world - he/she can afford health care for themselves and their family. They drive newer cars which are safer. They live in areas with less crime and more building codes, etc. The point is that there is noticeable comfort/safety increase for these expenses.
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.
From my own personal experiences- which you can take with a grain of salt- given the option between 100 talented devs with an excellent business model and an elite CEO with a ham sandwich, I'm taking the ham sandwich.
It's a shame, but I have to agree. I'm not into conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was actually some sort of concerted effort by some elites to keep normal people at odds with one another, simply because if they weren't fighting amoungst themselves they would begin to wonder what to do about the fact that so much wealth and power has concentrate into the hands of such a small group of people. We might could find a political solution to address this if there majority were united, but I think once police and military work are largely automated that will be the ball game. There will thenceforth no longer be any fear of extralegal repercussions (e.g. riots, revolution, etc.) for abusing society at large for personal gain in legal ways.
For me it all boils down to a feeling of stability and hope for the future. Houses here start at 700k and retirement is expensive.
I also did just pay off my student loans this year after a decade of grappling with them. So that’s probably contributed to my increased happiness as well (I would have paid them off this year even if I hadn’t gotten the raise).
I think I will likely see a 1/3 decrease in my take home in 1.5-2 years.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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...
Add a zero for SF.
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.
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.
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.