How much salary is enough? Apparently, $75,000/year

$75k is a decent salary in most of the US, but if you're in NYC or SF, even his 20% variance (bringing it up to $90k) just isn't enough. If you want to save money, buy a house in the future, and have money to do things, then $120k is minimum in Manhattan, and $90-100k in most of the rest of NYC. Yes, you can live very cheaply in NYC, but at the expense of time; I personally don't want to travel for an hour or more to get to an office, myself.

Saying that a salary is "enough" because that's where happiness flattens out is silly. Most people have no idea how to manage their money, stay out of debt, and prepare for retirement, so they're happy once their salary outstrips their immediate ability to spend.

I tried to trick myself once I started making more than 60K by splitting my direct deposit into checking and savings. Now every raise I get goes directly into savings and I try to live thinking that financially i've been in the same place as I have been for a while. It works fairly well but once you get married, buy a house, and have kids things change quite a bit.

That all being said if you think that your salary correlates to your happiness then you're chasing the dragon.

I think this is best evidenced by my joy at payday. When I started out my website (about 13 years ago..), the first $25 payment really thrilled me! Eventually, I had bigger milestones. When I got to $100/month that was awesome! Then, we got even bigger.

Now, even an extra $3000/month gives me a nice feeling but nothing much to be honest.

I think money only goes so far. Once you're comfortable, it's only achievements and breakthroughs that can really make you happy.

Case in point: A blog that I started recently got it's first money (around $120, and I was overjoyed!) :)

It is enough as long as you can manage the following math:

Cashflow in (net) > Cashflow out (net)

It is that simple. Yes of course at $75K in NYC, your "cashflow out" variable needs to be lower than what it would be at $120K. So it is your choice. Make $75K in NYC but want to live in manhattan ? Sure, you can do that but your non-housing costs have to be significantly lower.

Master that formula for life and u r golden. I have been doing it for years. My income has seen significant changes over past few years (luckily positive) but when in confusion, I use this formula time and time. Also, I love to discuss this with my wife whenever she says "we make so much money. Why can't we buy X now"

It's not about the salary, it's about how much you put away and how much you need to live on. I make about $80k after bonuses, not a whole lot in some places like SF or NYC, but I find that in Portland, I'm able to save 40-50% after taxes. I know that would change if I bought a house or had kids, but still.

Does $75k mean pre-tax or post-tax?

Post-tax comes out to $46,800 a year in California, that's $3,900 a month. Which is great, but yea when you start thinking about a wedding in the future and kids college, you're left with $900 a month to save for those things, granted you don't blow it on vacations and other activites.

A sample monthly expense (doesn't apply to everyone, can be reduced by a lot by eating beans out of a can and walking 12 miles to work)

If you're paying $1,000 a month in rent $100 in utilities $400 in groceries $100 eating out $100 clothing/supplies $400 car payment $200 gas $400 student loans $200 in credit cards $100 in misc.

That's $1,300 left over.

Here is an almost bizarre theory. When your salary crosses the average number your enjoyment of things that you can buy with money goes down drastically. You have much more appreciation of the used car that you bought out of college as the monthly payments pinched you a little. A good way for you to maintain that effect is to keep stepping up your lifestyle as your salary increases. Constantly buying a little more than you can afford. You can easily afford a Honda now? Buy BMW. Goes against conventional wisdom, but food for thought.

> When did a millionaire become a working class stiff?

1990s, so not exactly news to anyone familiar with inflation.

The expression is pre-1980s really. Put $1M in an inflation calculator for 1975, and you'll find that equates to about $7M now. It makes sense: You'd live very well off of interest from $7M.

As has been discussed elsewhere, this slides a bit depending on where you live and I've seen charts that list how much you need to make for your market to be happy enough, but that's not germane to the overall point.

It is ultimately true that money and things can't buy happiness. Life experiences, friends and family have a far greater affect on happiness. Going on a memorable vacation, for instance, will do more for your happiness than remodeling your home. There are several reasons why increased money doesn't necessarily make people happier:

# Making more money often requires more time and responsibility. Neither tends to make people happier. If you have to spend more time working to make more money, you might be happier making less because you'll have more time to spend on your hobbies.

# People tend to spend more money the more money they make, often in ways that don't make them that much happier. Making $150,000 a year? Time for you to buy a house fitting of a man who makes $150,000 a year! Even though, you might be happier living in a smaller, simpler house and a bigger house and mortgage means you may not be paying a lower percentage of your income towards housing. Or you might be happier with a smaller mortgage that doesn't require a $150,000 a year job to support (it's harder to find high paying jobs, which makes the threat of losing them more stressful).

# One of the great keys to happiness and longevity is friendship. If making more money requires you to spend less time with friends and making friends, it won't make you happier.

Let's be honest, no matter where you live $75K isn't much. Even if you live in cheaper areas, it may not be poverty but it's certainly not happiness inducing wealth. Let's be serious.

So never mind that there are other studies which point to different findings. More importantly: the study finds that money above $75k has no impact on "Emotional Well Being = the quality of a person’s everyday experience such as joy, fascination, anxiety, sadness, anger, and affection" however at all levels more money improves "Life Evaluation = a person’s thoughts about his or her life (on a longer time scale)." How have we decided to call the first one "happiness" and not the second one? Maybe that's how the psychologists define happiness, but it's not the everyday meaning of the word as I perceive it. Granted, English is not my first language but I would say "happiness" includes both "emotional well being" and "life evaluation", and maybe even with more emphasis on the latter when contrasted with, say, "joy" which is the one that pertains more to the short-term states, isn't that right?

As a concrete not money-related example, parents of young children probably typically don't have very good "emotional well being" as defined above, but nevertheless by every account I've heard they're usually very happy, which means precisely their "life evaluation" is high.

Living in Ohio on about that now. If It wasn't for relatively giant student loan payments (stupid private school... yes it was a poor idea), then yea... that's absolutely enough money for most places (not Boston, NYC, SF, DC, etc). The only real reason I'd like a bit more still is to offset those payments and allow a bit more travel.

It certainly might be enough, but I'd imagine that you are delaying the worrying and stress for your retirement when you realize you saved $100k over 30 years.

Yep. Just times by three if you live in SF with a family.

I am so tired of this argument, and the only people here in support of such a statement, I feel, are the young single and childless.

Take a divorce, child support, travel etc into account and I cannot live on anything less than $150K

Rent for a house with several children, for me, is $2300 for a two bedroom with a garage, yard and an extremely lucky addition of a very large play room.

I am REALLY lucky to have this place - as it would go for $3500+ if I move out....

The argument for less and less salary always sounds to me like peasants justifying their fealty, though at the same time - we should not be decrying arbitrary pay brackets - but demanding more fair pricing for all the tings that are required to survive and thrive.

Everything is overpriced.

Once you cross the 70k mark, you can have almost anything you want. Sure, people can contrive lots of contra-examples in your replies. But the truth for real/average/majority of Americans is that level of income makes any toy/hobby/charity possible.

It also caries with it dental, health and disability insurance.

Being able to document 70k annual income offers almost unlimited credit if you have good credit and forgiveness if you have bad credit.

But at that level one is an expert and if you do not get your fair market rate it means someone is ripping you off so you want your proper pay just as a matter of fairness.

This is not too far from my own salary in a rural-ish area, my wife making half that as a teacher. We budget and manage our money carefully, and are indeed happy; we never disagree about money. When I was in major debt, I found I was constantly stressed and on the edge. Once it got paid off, I felt free. I have a mortgage and student loans (and a year left on a car note), but it's just a monthly payment with low interest. Even with a second child on the way, I don't feel worried; it won't be easy, but it's definitely manageable.

One of the biggest mistakes I make is seeing people save for their kids to go to college. Not only can you barely beat inflation (if not for the tax benefits), what happens when your child wants to major in Psychology? I treat college like an investment; for some careers it's appropriate, others not. If it's appropriate, then you should be able to take out loans that can be repaid in 5-6 years. If the career they want does not allow for that, then some better decisions need to be made. Nothing wrong with skilled trade these days.

My only worry (and it doesn't keep me up at night) is with retirement. I save probably 10% toward that, with 11% returns the past few years (I know, right?), but even at that rate I won't really be able to retire until my late 60s if I want any sort of decent life. I'm working now on trying to save more so that maybe I can retire earlier.

In the end, I believe unhappiness with money has more to do with debt than income. I'd imagine the results are skewed because people making $75k may also tend towards less debt. I imagine those making half that amount would be plenty happy if they had no debt to worry with.

Reading the comments on here, it's incredible how many on HN don't realise how privileged they are. $75,000 is a lot of money, even in NYC and SFO, and the people who think otherwise are probably single 20-30 somethings that insist on living by themselves. Traditionally, children lived with their parents, even after marriage, until they can afford to live on their own.

There are millions of people in America living in much less than $75k per year and doing just fine even in the big cities. (Otherwise, there wouldn't be a "bad part of town") My parents raised three kids on less and they now own a house and two cars. People in higher incomes forget that there is an entire other country of people who make much less money than they do. 72% of households in the US live on less than $75k. In Manhattan, median income is $65k! There is living breathing proof of people living below these numbers everyday. These aren't unicorns. It's not rich, but nor is it poverty, which is defined as $11,500 in NYC for an individual.

Truth of the matter is, if I made $75k, I'd have a $75k lifestyle. If made $150k, I'd have a $150k lifestyle. Even if I made $1M per year, I'd have a million dollar lifestyle and probably still feel poor. I'd drive a more expensive car, buy more expensive groceries, live in more expensive housing, eat at more expensive restaurants, wear more expensive clothes, have more expensive hobbies and take more expensive vacations. What this article claims is that past the magical $75,000 mark, we are as poor as we allow ourselves to be. Saving money and not building debt is very hard to do for most people. It's a fact of life that people like to live beyond their means. I know I do.

One premise the author stated is "cutting your spending rate is much more powerful than increasing your income". The idea seems to be that this both increases one's ability to save while also lowering the bar for current and future expenses. Many people could benefit from taking a hard look at their expenses and trying to find areas to cut.

That being said, taking this orientation has its limits. First, there is a floor to how much savings one can make on a given lifestyle. Additionally, the upside potential is limited if a lot of time and effort is spent on trimming expenses.

Some folks, especially the type of folks who frequent HN, have substantial opportunities to increase their income (e.g., through freelance work) that often suggest that increasing income is MUCH more powerful than cutting one's spending rate (I think patio11 has mentioned something like this). Often times the equivalent of one or two hours of tech consulting can cover the cost of many "unnecessary" conveniences that save one time and/or effort. Additionally, it's much more scalable -- that is, the upside of saving more of an increased income frequently has more upside potential than cutting costs.

Of course, not everyone can do tech work, and even tech workers will probably need to adjust their spending to a lower level once they are on "fixed income", but I think these lines start to stray from the central issue.

As for startups, I think a holistic approach to assets and resources needs to be considered. Specifically, often the scarcest asset is founder time, so spending money to save founder time is often an <i>extremely</i> prudent choice to make in terms of adding value to the company.

Call me paranoid but I always feel like these studies are being done to lay the groundwork to justify tax increases on the affluent. "You don't need to make that much, we've done research! $75,000 is all you need trust us, you'll be just as happy." Just a thought...

My problem with this - I need money to do stuff I like. And only making stuff makes me happy. Solution to this is to be paid via what I do to make myself happy. I am not there yet, but I will I am sure.

Well, at least he proved himself wrong by posting this link: "Yes, Money Does Buy Happines: 6 Lessons from the Newest Research on Income and Well-Being"

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/yes-money-...

"Enough" perhaps for an average person, with average ambition (far below what it ought to be) and ability, living in an average house, in an average town. Which describes no one and nowhere.

I make more than double that and I still can't afford a house here :(

You can also divide that by the number of mouths you have to feed.

and if you're married and have kids..... multiply by 3 at least.

A society that correlates material wealth with happiness is shallow and deprived. Or have you never read Dickens?

Does this article talk about regional variance of cost of living? Saving for retirement? Raising kids? Or is it the quarterly blogspam repost of a poorly structured survey from many years ago?