Researchers Say Happiness Costs $75K 772
SpuriousLogic writes "Does happiness rise with income? In one of the more scientific attempts to answer that question, researchers from Princeton have put a price on happiness. It's about $75,000 in income a year. They found that not having enough money definitely causes emotional pain and unhappiness. But, after reaching an income of about $75,000 per year, money can't buy happiness. More money can, however, help people view their lives as successful or better. The study found that people's evaluations of their lives improved steadily with annual income. But the quality of their everyday experiences — their feelings — did not improve above an income of $75,000 a year. As income decreased from $75,000, people reported decreasing happiness and increasing sadness, as well as stress. The study found that being divorced, being sick and other painful experiences have worse effects on a poor person than on a wealthier one."
Money does not buy happiness, but ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Money does not buy happiness, but lack of money makes a huge down payment on unhappiness.
Re:Money does not buy happiness, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Money can't buy you happiness, but poverty can't buy you shit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or to use the words of the immortal Dean Martin:
Ask the rich man he'll confess,
Money can't buy happiness.
Ask the poor man he don't doubt,
But he'd rather be miserable with than without.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you now unable to get a database driven web development job? I mean, it both paid more and you liked it more ... why not just go back?
Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction (Score:5, Funny)
Have you ever tried to get an advanced stylesheet to work in IE? Some sort of advanced training, and a kindly god, is needed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense the so called "bust" would not necessarily mean that he wouldn't still be making 90k, even after the "bust", most people making that before are still making that or more, AND he would have had all the additional work experience at that time, to justify at least maintaining that rate.
Presumably he's out $90k, for some portion of the years he took off to pursue graduate work, however, and probably more when you account for things like raises.
Meaning it's generous to say he's $10k in the ho
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to be hurtful, but I'm baffled by the notion that anyone could look at our society and not see that there was an obvious oversupply of lawyers. That's why there are all the jokes (and non-jokes) about them being leeches, etc.
Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction (Score:4, Interesting)
The ABA and the law schools pretty much lie to prospective students. I don't mean mislead, or present incomplete information, I mean they will knowingly lie about employment prospects. I didn't want to rely on sort of "everyone knows" information like the supposed oversupply of lawyers, so I researched and tracked down statistics for my law school, without knowing that those statistics are intentionally twisted. Hadn't expected that; my undergrad school published their own statistics even when they made them look bad, so I thought law schools would do the same. Several schools have been caught lying, and blame "inadvertent" clerical errors, but for some reason the error is always in the same direction. I was also personally caught in another lie, that the JD degree is useful outside the law; it was sold as a more rigorous version of a degree in public policy/administration/government, though it in actuality pretty much forecloses you from being hired in any other field. This last thing is the most annoying, I actually make a good living as a lawyer, but if I had realized that the JD would make that the sole thing I would be able to get a job in, I wouldn't have gone.
Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction (Score:4, Insightful)
*Disclaimer* I know I'll get modded to oblivion for this, but I feel it needs to be said.
Considering the fact that it appears to be only say 1% of lawsuits are actually justified and lawyers charge an insane amount (despite the acknowledged over supply of lawyers), I think I speak for most of society when I say I don't feel sorry for you in the slightest.
The overwhelming majority of lawyers go into it because they want to make a lot of money by financially raping people who've done nothing wrong. There's a reason most people despise lawyers and refer to them as things like leeches and bloodsuckers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mathmatics of dissatisfaction (Score:4, Insightful)
Took me 11 years. At times I went 40 hours without sleep and worked 55 hours and then did over 60 hours of homework in the same week.
The changes it made to me as a person (not the education) were worth every minute.
But it cost me very little financially (probably under $14,000) and I graduated debt free. It was kind of fun until year 8. Then I realized I still had 54ish hours to go out of a 130 hour degree (and 38 hours sunk on a change of majors).
College for who it makes you as a person- worth it. For the income- not worth it any more.
So choose a small inexpensive college- go 4 years. Graduate with little debt.
Unless you have awesome connections.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is painfully obvious. (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Money cannot buy happiness, it can buy security.
2. When your loved ones are secure you are less stressed.
3. When you are less stressed you can focus more on being happy.
How much money you need is actually determined by how many people you have to care for. If you don't have any children, or a spouse, $75,000 is about right. If you have children, a wife, and a big family, $75,000 is a drop in the bucket and you'd probably need twice that much to provide for children and take care of parents or grand parents into old age.
I don't know about you but thats my formula. The amount is determined by the amount of people I have to provide security for and the overall security expense, along with whatever the expense is for my personal wellbeing. It's ultimately about people, unless you're a greedy anti-social.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I am a slashdotter and don't have any loved ones you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First you must love yourself...
When that gets boring, take some of that $75,000 and hire a hooker or two.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I get only $8088 a year in income from SSI.
Of course, I also get food stamps, and make use of Section 8 rent subsidies, so my effective income is probably a little higher.
I'm still well below the 75k mark, but then again I'm not paying in sweat to get it either.
I even have $1400 in credit available, thanks to a couple of credit cards.
I'm fairly happy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I get only $8088 a year in income from SSI.
Of course, I also get food stamps, and make use of Section 8 rent subsidies, so my effective income is probably a little higher.
I'm still well below the 75k mark, but then again I'm not paying in sweat to get it either.
I even have $1400 in credit available, thanks to a couple of credit cards.
I'm fairly happy.
Some people are happy living in prison, most aren't. What you don't mention is how old you are. If you are 80 years old and can't do anything then living like that is not going to make you miserable but if you are in the prime of your life and you can't do anything, living on SSI is a virtual prison.
Unless of course you don't want to do anything?
Anyway I assume your post in a joke but if it's not then please describe what in your life is making you happy? Do you have kids? a spouse? a family? How on earth d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have almost unlimited free time.
I also happen to be a 25 year old geek with too much time on his hands. Besides reading slashdot, I also work on a few projects at SF.
Re:This is painfully obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is painfully obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you disabled? Is there anything legitimately keeping you from getting a job? If not, what makes you think you have the right to live off of everyone's taxes?
It's simple. Say he does get a job selling drugs or as a prostitute, your tax dollars would then pay the vice cop who would arrest him, the judge who would handle the trial, his lawyer, the prosecutor, and then you the juror would have to waste your time hearing the case and making a decision.
It seems cheaper to just pay for SSI, the alternatives if we want there to be an alternative is to have full employment and how would you want to guarantee that everyone who wants a job can have one? It's not as simple of a problem of "But my tax dollars pay for these people to live for free!", in reality your tax dollars go to waste on a lot more unimportant stuff than this, and the tax dollars you spend on this lowers the crime rate and actually saves you money long term, unless you want the alternative where we legalize all the stuff that is currently illegal for cosmetic concerns, like drugs, prostitution, gambling and stuff of this sort.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess (3) has faked one ore more of the above -- could also be true.
Re: (Score:3)
I have autistic disorder.
A licensed psychologist diagnosed me. So either I'm a nutcase, or I'm a damn good bullshitter.
And if I was, I'd probably be working in a bank or a brokerage with the other greedy fuckers that brought our country down to its knees during the whole subprime mortgage fiasco.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How old are you? If you're over 55, congratulations. If you're under 55, get a job you lazy bastard.
I used to ride the Metro Blue Line to work. I saw so many young, otherwise healthy people on the train with nothing but free time who were complaining about how SSI wasn't enough and how they hate their free Section 8 housing. But they would never go get a job, because then they'd lose "their benefits". For way too many people in this society, SSI, SDI and Section 8 are a free ticket to a life paid for b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're making others pay in sweat in order to finance your lifestyle? You're living on the dole, and that makes you happy? Well done, sir. You are a HUGE part of the problem, but as long as YOU'RE happy, that makes everything okay.
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I'd be happy dropping the minimum wage a bit to take care of the disparity between supply and demand.
Perhaps also giving workers a basic 5 dollar an hour subsidy on their wages, taking off 1 cent for every 2 they earn above that.
That would jumpstart the economy pretty damn fast. Businesses, by being able to hire more cheaply, will get more people off the dole and onto the roll, the payroll. The bazillions of unemployed people would line up for work faster than the crowd at PAX when DNF was demo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but only for white land-owners. The sad reality is that we don't have and hopefully don't want our literal forefathers' vision today. Makes for effective rhetoric though, with so many ignorant of history...
Re:This is painfully obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Man, you must know mostly well-off people! Most families I know are not making $75k, and no single people I know are making that much, and nobody feels anything close to poor. A household income of $75k is, according to some census stats, 73rd percentile: i.e. 27% of people make more, and 73% make less. If being in the richest 27% of Americans makes you feel poor, you must have a pretty inflated notion of "middle class"...
I personally make around $35k as a young single person with no debt, and feel rich, fwiw. I can't even spend it all--- after $1k/month on rent for a nice apt near the beach, and another $1k on food/car/entertainment, my expenses are pretty much covered.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
All depends on where you live. In the DC area you have 5/10 richest counties in the nation. For example my county has 2.7 million people with an average income of 107k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
As a result, housing, food etc are all priced higher than most other places. Plus the taxman considers you to be "wealthy" so just because you have a higher cost of living, salary's are raised accordingly, and you have to pay higher taxes too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding me? Where the hell do you live that you don't know multiple people making that much? I live in a very middle of the road area cost and salary wise (Cincinnati, OH) and the overwhelming majority of people 40+ make $70k+ a year.
The mean and median salary in the US is around $45k a year - however, that factors in a LOT of people who have no education and make minimum wage. If you only look at people with an associates degree and up, you'd see the mean and median salary swing up very quickly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't believe your 73rd percentile stat at all given that the mean and median (so 50th percentile) are roughly $45k.
You can get those stats from irs.gov. Back in 2003 I checked it out: I was making $75K and that was the 80th percentile; at the time $35K was the median. At the top 5% range it gets absolutely ridiculous - see the L Curve [lcurve.org] (biased but still accurate numbers).
That's the major cause of the current recession - the fact that people didn't save and used credit cards to spend way more than they earned (at least you're not doing that).
The problem wasn't people spending - spending is great for the economy. The problem is that the economy simultaneously requires a large middle class to keep spending and a smaller workforce to keep producing. Since the workforce and consumer class ar
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I got the stats from here [wikipedia.org], which in turn cites some U.S. govt sources. In particular, it looks like about 16% of households make $100k+, and another 11% make $75k-$100k, adding up to 27% making $75k+.
Re:This is painfully obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we have a million toys? The latest gadgets and gizmo's? No, but we are comfortable, my wife teases me about having as many computers as we do, our kids watch far more TV than we do, and PBSkids looks just fine on a non HD screen. On the other hand we are able to help others in need and have a good sized emergency fund, and a stable of investments.
How did we do it? Well first off, when we bought our house we didn't look to get the biggest McMansion in town stretching out our income to the absolute maximum we could afford, we found something that fit our needs and had room to grow our family within our plans. Oh, and my wife (an Attorney by education and pre-marriage employment) is by her choice a stay at home mom. We do all this on one income.
About 10 years ago someone told me I'd need a minimum of 50k a year to comfortably raise a family. I'm still not quite to that point but doing fine. Would I like more? Sure, but we are comfortable, satisfied and happy.
Your comprehension of what is needed is way off.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But lets say 20 years from now you find out you have X disease that costs Y amount to treat it with an experimental drug insurance doesnt' cover.
Not an issue if you live in Canada (or basically anywhere other than the US)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Universal health care is a good thing when costs are under control. It's not socialist. Get over it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about we stop talking about things as "rights" which require "taking" from someone else something of value to give to someone else?
Health Care is NOT a right. Rights don't depend on other people, they are self evident (exist on their own).
IF you want to call it something, lets call it what it is, a privilege that is afforded us because we are wealthy, educated and technically advanced enough.
BTW, all three of those things are subject to change, and are changing even as we speak, because we have continue
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the only way to control costs is central planning, which is .... socialistic.
I thought the only way to control costs was to ensure healthy competition, freedom of choice and fight inefficiencies. How is central planning efficient?
On one hand you have the ideal of an omniscient and beneficent central planner who acts in the best interests of all involved.
On the other hand, you have the ideal of totally fair and free choice and competition.
If you live in a universe where either of those things actually exists, please raise your hand... I'm waiting... nobody? Thought so.
Somewhere in the middle lies the optimal realistic solution. In other words, the best we can do with what we have.
If we're smart, we (via elected representatives) l
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Realize you're about to die like everyone else and enjoy your last few years.
Go volunteer a few weeks in an oncology ward before you make that statement.
Re:This is painfully obvious. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would add the number of people you accept to care for can go up with increased income. When I passed an amount I felt secure with I accepted increased responsibility for helping parents and siblings. That extra load seems to be a wash emotionally: there is some extra worry balanced by increased happiness at being able to help.
Count among your blessings the fact that you had a choice in the matter. Taking on a big responsibility is easier when done voluntarily, as I'm sure you've seen. So much serious stuff gives us little say. My in-laws recently had to evacuate a seriously -- and possibly terminally -- ill expatriate grandfather, an operation that has saddled grandpa's children with considerable debt. It really wasn't a viable option for them to leave their dad to die in his newly adopted tropical home. And the non-insured medical expenses are not going to make things better, either. Right now I'm hoping that my wife and I don't get touched to help out. Seeing that in print looks heartless, but the man moved voluntarily, aware of his worsening health.
Re: (Score:3)
TFA is the dumbest thing ever.
Money translates directly into power of a certain kind. The kind of power that comes with money can most definitely increase happiness if used wisely. It can also increase misery; it depends completely upon how the owner directs it.
People who mindlessly verbally dump this old chestnut annoy me. In a working economy, most people get money by making other people happy. Think about it: most money gets made because the person paying benefits from the transaction...they're happier t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would add the number of people you accept to care for can go up with increased income. When I passed an amount I felt secure with I accepted increased responsibility for helping parents and siblings. That extra load seems to be a wash emotionally: there is some extra worry balanced by increased happiness at being able to help.
FWIW, if you are helping parents, siblings, children, relatives, friends, or just anyone in general I have a three tips for you.
1) Every loan you make has a good possibility of becoming a "gift" if they can't or won't pay you back. Don't loan more than you would be able to give someone -- especially without collateral or a legally binding agreement. If someone's inability to payback a loan would cause you financial hardship or would terminate your relationship with them, you are better off not giving th
cheap shot (Score:5, Funny)
Tomorrow's headline: "Democrats call for a new $75,000 living wage. Supported by research."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Impossible. Happiness is something you should have the liberty to pursue. It's not something which should be given to people by the government. The government should provide ample opportunity and resources for people to have the option to fight or compete for happiness.
The reality we have today is that for a majority of people unless you are born to make $75k no amount of hard work or effort will allow you to reach that goal unless you break the law. It should not be so difficult for ordinary people to make
Re:cheap shot (Score:5, Funny)
More Likely... (Score:5, Funny)
More likely that all sorts of white upper-middle class trustifarian college students start demanding $75,000 for everyone, to the chant of "Happiness is a human right!"
Then come the 'experts' at House and Senate hearings:
"Over 240 million Americans go to bed every night without Happiness. Americans are unhappy right here on our own shores! We must end Sadness! When I was in college, I was unhappy. After my accident, I got a $75,000 settlement from the university, and from then on I was happy. I come here to tell you that if every American had the same $75K opportunity I did, we could end Sadness forever."
Re:cheap shot (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that while the President has a majority in Congress on paper, reality is much different. It would be a lot more obvious that he hasn't got a majority were we under a Parliamentary system. ...
The only thing that could realistically screw it up for them is if the Tea party steals too many votes or the American people collectively grow a spine.
Wow. I'm actually a bit dismayed this post got modded insightful. All you're doing is calling a large portion of the population spineless and brainless for having a different opinion than yourself.
I think it's a perfectly valid point of view to believe a government should protect an environment where it's most productive members are enabled to enrich themselves and society as a whole. I also think it's perfectly valid to believe a government's largest expenditures should not be income transfer programs. I also think it's quite realistic to expect to strike a balance where society's poorest members can be helped in times of need without bankrupting the entire nation.
It amazes me how so-called "open minded" people can be so intolerant of differing opinions.
Re:cheap shot (Score:4, Insightful)
I also think it's perfectly valid to believe a government's largest expenditures should not be income transfer programs.
In a very real sense, all government expenditures are income transfer payments.
So... you're a socialist? (Score:3, Funny)
I think it's a perfectly valid point of view to believe a government should protect an environment where it's most productive members are enabled to enrich themselves
I can't work out whether you are a confused socialist or a confused conservative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
this is the problem... you have to label everyone to determine whether you agree or disagree. OMG he's a socialist! I hate him so much!
How about this: we look at each issue independently and and decide for ourselves what we want. Instead of saying "I'm with the tea party therefore I'm against gun control, I want lower taxes and stronger border control and no more mosques in America!" You decide for yourself your own opinion on each issue.
That is why most Americans are cowards. They are too afraid to think f
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, according to this research, taking money away from those making quite a bit more than $75k per year and giving it to those making quite a bit less would raise total happiness. Let's reverse the policies of upwards wealth transfer put into place by the wealthy. Let's go back to the 90% marginal tax rate on the highest earners we had in the 50s. The system worked better for them, they should pay more because they got more from society. Let's stop letting the rich set policy that benefits them at our exp
Re:cheap shot (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, taking back what was stolen from you is not stealing.
With that attitude, you can justify any action. Why steal it back? Why not just arrest these fat cats and lock them in prison? We could call our local sheriff's department and have them lock up any CEO or entrepreneur that makes... what? over 250K/yr? That should be fair, right. After all, anyone who is wealthy stole the money anyway, right? No one making that much money could have actually earned through sacrifice, hard work, risk taking and brilliant thinking.
Of course, we could take seize all their assets and redistribute them to whoever they stole it from. Just curious though, who would get Michael Dell's assets? Seems to me that the money Dell has made came from people who willingly purchased products and services that Dell provides. Stealing is taking stuff away from people against their will. Who did Dell steal from? Other than the obvious thieves, Enron execs, Bernie Madhoff, etc, who have the founders of the companies that make stuff we all use, like iPods, software, dishwashers stolen from? How do we get the money back to the victims if we don't know who they are?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With that attitude, you can justify any action. Why steal it back? Why not just arrest these fat cats and lock them in prison? We could call our local sheriff's department and have them lock up any CEO or entrepreneur that makes... what? over 250K/yr? That should be fair, right. After all, anyone who is wealthy stole the money anyway, right? No one making that much money could have actually earned through sacrifice, hard work, risk taking and brilliant thinking.
If Libertarians can say that even minimal con
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not stealing to take back stolen property. The rich have bought themselves laws that transferred wealth to them, well, we can vote ourselves laws that transfer it back to us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not stealing to take back stolen property. The rich have bought themselves laws that transferred wealth to them, well, we can vote ourselves laws that transfer it back to us.
OK, what laws has Michael Dell purchased to get himself rich? Remember, he started out making computers out of his UT dorm room. Steve Jobs started out in his garage. How did Jobs and Wozniak afford to buy off the US Senate? How did the rich guys buy laws BEFORE the wealth was transferred to them? I think you need to rework you logic. As it stands, it's flawed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's go back to the 90% marginal tax rate on the highest earners we had in the 50s. The system worked better for them, they should pay more because they got more from society.
I decided to do some research on that, and found: [yalelawjournal.org]
Brownlee helpfully provides estimates of the historical effective rates for the richest one percent of households as well. He indicates that effective rates during the high marginal rate years of World War I reached 15.8%, and that during the high marginal rate years of World War II the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in the short term. In the long-term, as income distribution levelled, it might tend back toward the pre-hike level or below, but that would also correspond to less poverty and demand for poverty support programs, so you'd see lower spending to acheive the same policy goals as well as seeing lower revenues.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. I only favor raising taxes on the ultra rich.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Investment income is income, so tax that. And stop pretending we are powerless against the rich, this is a democracy. We just have to stop believing we are powerless, or that we need the rich to hand out jobs. We need to stop this "abusive stepfather state" (see what I did there?) that caters to the rich.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So? We just close the loopholes. Don't allow people to invest in tax havens. Why should we continue to allow people to screw over society?
You know what removes the incentive to invest? Lack of demand. If you have all the money in the world and everyone else has none, why would you invest in jobs creation? No one has any money to spend on your products. That is what we are seeing now, there is plenty of capital to invest in new jobs, there is just no demand.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No such thing as lack of demand? That is utterly stupid. You don't even support that inane statement, just utter it as a matter of fact, and then tack on a non sequiter about fiat money. You are a walking museum of wingnut cliches and your opinions should not be taken seriously.
The US government is nowhere near bankruptcy, you libertarian loon. Look at the bond market, people seem damn sure the government will pay them back, and history shows us they are right to think that.
As a follower of a discredited fr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wikipedia is a good place to start, these being contested viewpoints the scholarship on the articles is impeccable and the citations are numerous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me give you an example. My girlfriend's parents are very well-off. Her father is a dentist who owns his own practice, which employs about 30 other people. It's taken him years of hard work to accomplish this. He didn't start off well-off, he worked his ass off, took risks, and today does very well, and provides a decent living and health insurance for many employees. If you took the money he worked so hard to make to give it to others who did not earn it, he wouldn't be able to help those he helps with
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, brilliant. Get rid of the government after the rich have used them to steal all your money. Right now, the government works for the rich because we don't vote in our own interests. Americans need to wake up and stop enabling our abusers. We have national Stockholm Syndrome.
Even if you choose how you spend your money, the rich still take you to the cleaners. In any free transaction, both people walk away with more value. Obviously, they value what they got over what they gave. But how much more? That
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And we tax their businesses here. They can't pick up their factories and take them with. If they want to shut them down, we socialize them and give them to the workers. Let the rich cut off their noses to spite their face.
I'm curious. If you truly believe that taking over the factories and giving them to workers is such a good idea, why do you live here? There are many countries all around the world who have done just that. Cuba, China, Venezuela are just a few that come to mind first. Why are you trying so hard to force your Communist nightmare on the rest of us when all you need to do is move to a place to live out your very own Marxist dream?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Holy Fuck, Atlas Shrugged? Seriously? You are recommending the worst piece of pseudo-philosophical tripe written in the last thousand years? Go back to study hall, college boy.
Too much money also means no trust. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say that $75,000 is a good estimate because the more money you have the less trust you usually have along with it. At $75,000 you have just enough money to maintain your friends, and family relations, and to be able to trust your spouse. When you start to get over this amount your friendships may begin to change as some friends will start to envy you or get jealous, you may not be able to trust your family members anymore or your spouse, as it gets into the $100,000+ and $200,000+ and $500,000+ even
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
As one of the "people with money", at least by your definition, I can say quite confidently that I trust my girlfriend and friends completely.
Logic falters in the face of reality, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To show a flaw in your logic requires that you first provide some logic. Handwaving, smokescreens, envy, and assumptions aren't logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Why did you posts two semi long threads in a matter of 2 minutes?
Re: (Score:2)
Very good post. People who suddenly come to have a lot of money (e.g. winning the lottery) are often surprised when their life takes a turn for the worse after the initial glow has worn off.
Re:Too much money also means no trust. (Score:4, Insightful)
This got rated up to 4? People, please apply for jobs at the CIA, you pass the paranoia qualification.
Here's a helpful tip when talking to friends who maybe don't have the same number of digits in their bank account balances: shut the fuck up and do not discuss your income. Holy shit, how hard is it. I've talked with friends about their favorite sexual positions with their wives, but talking about income? Absolutely fucking off limits.
By the way, life gets better once you finally graduate high school. Just thought I'd throw out some advice which is relevant to you.
Re:Too much money also means no trust. (Score:5, Insightful)
shut the fuck up and do not discuss your income
Soooo... what you're saying is that you agree with him? Can't trust your friends eh?
Re:Too much money also means no trust. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is why American workers get shafted so hard. Income is even more off-limits for discussion than religion (and that's saying a lot!), so you never realize that the guy working in the office next to your cubical makes ten times your salary, despite only providing maybe one or two times your value to the company (if that).
Social mores like "never discuss your income" strictly benefit the rich.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Posted AC so people won't hit him up for $$$ on /.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does one's bill point to how much one makes? All the bills I get in the mail are my utility and cell phone bills. I suppose if one is throwing away bank statements and/or credit card bills. However, if one is throwing away those documents, most companies these days offer the option to stop wasting money on paper and postage and will just e-mail it.
I could see it being obvious if the guy down the street has some hot new car every year, walks around in a fur coat, and has a bottle of Dom Pérignon in
Where do you live? (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of money that you require to be "happy" depends on where you live and what the lifestyles of the people around you are.
Where you live sets the baseline cost of living, and visible lifestyles determine your expectations.
Dimensional analysis, please (Score:3)
75 000 USD/year != 75 000 USD
Also, what is that uninformative picture of coins in a hand doing there? It does not add anything! This is just as bad as a newspaper article!
Re:Dimensional analysis, please (Score:5, Funny)
You should really make more money.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is just as bad as a newspaper article!
Hurray! Slashdot has improved the quality of its summaries!
To put it another way... (Score:2)
Double what you are earning (Score:5, Insightful)
75K would be about double the national average.
Also this 75k number would completely depend on where you are. 75K is poverty in NYC while in most Podunks 75K would make you near royalty.
Re:Double what you are earning (Score:5, Informative)
Man, if $75k is poverty in NYC then 2/3 of NYC lives in poverty! Is it really the case that only the top third of New Yorkers can be said to be non-poor?
(The median income for the city is $48k, fwiw. Even for Manhattan, the median is $65k.)
Re:Double what you are earning (Score:5, Interesting)
Man, if $75k is poverty in NYC then 2/3 of NYC lives in poverty! Is it really the case that only the top third of New Yorkers can be said to be non-poor?
If you were given a tour of some of the $1000-$1500 a month apartments in the Lower East Side and didn't know their cost, you'd certainly describe them as "impoverished" living conditions. The next level of rent in NYC ($1500-$2200) doesn't generally get you space past 800 square feet in the city (New Yorkers call Manhattan "The City," not the boroughs, FYI). There is also a fee system in NYC for renting any apartment via a realtor - which is one of the only ways of getting a good place. The fee is usually a full-months rent that you pay to the realtor and never get back. So...if you're going to rent an $1000-a-month apartment here that you found via a realtor you pay the first months rent ($1000) last months rent ($1000) the fee ($1000) and a security deposit ($1000) making you're bill before moving expenses $4000. With all combined moving expenses you can easily pay $8000 to move a half-mile to a place that's the same price as the one you're living in now. All of this doesn't even factor in all the shenanigans you'll encounter while trying to beat 20 other people on signing the lease.
My wife and I live in NYC and we've estimated that for a husband and wife to live comfortably here (including going out to dinner once a week, belonging to a gym, being able to leave the city every other weekend, etc) you have to make around a combined income of $300k.
People in NYC tend to be so used to sacrificing basics to live here that they've forgotten what poverty means to the rest of the country (this includes people who make 75K here.) NYC's super-wealthy on the other-hand are these maladjusted weirdos who have nothing to do besides be paranoid about who's trying to take their money and contribute little or nothing to society. Most students here could also easily be deemed as impoverished. I've known some who go on sugar packet raids at bodegas and Starbucks as a way to save money.
I just heard a quote the other day (can't remember where) about NYC. "It's heaven and hell." That about sums it up.
even rich people hate life (Score:3, Insightful)
few months ago the NY Times did a breakdown of a $250,000 salary in NYC. after the insane "progressive" taxes, the mortgage and HOA fees of living on the upper east side or UWS, the nanny or the crazy elite day care there is very little left.
Re: (Score:2)
Especially rich people. Which explains some of the attitudes rich people have toward life in general.
Re:even rich people hate life (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is mostly their fault. I dislike taxes as much as anyone else, and I'm not usre our current system is exactly fair ... but the HOA fees "of living on the upper east side or UWS," the nanny, and the elite day care (and the elite private elementary schools that are $15k/yr or whatever, etc) are their choice.
Also, the five $60k+ cars eat into their income, too.
I'm glad we have a free country where people can make their own decisions, but being rich does not mean you necessarily make good money decisions. Seems like a lot of rich people have ended up poor because they didn't know how to manage their own riches and they spent it all, gambled it, invested it stupidly, or whatever.
Enough already (Score:3, Interesting)
$75,000 per year may buy a lot of happiness, if that is possible, in a place where the cost of living is really low, but in LA , NYC or Frisco? Forget about it - $75,000 is chicken feed - you can barely pay your rent on that salary. Guess most people living in LA, NYC and San Fran are really unhappy if this is the case.
Oh wait, I make more than that, but my wife does not work, so for the two of us we make less and we live in one of the aforementioned expensive cities. Guess we should be unhappy - dang it I hate it when I am not deemed normal!
Hmmm.. (Score:2)
Lack of debt makes for happiness (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how you put a $ figure on it. For me, it was lack of plastic debt. I have one CC and it it paid off weekly, yeah, weekly. My main debt is my house, followed by a car; whose sale price was less than 30% my gross. I do my best to keep monthlies to a minimum, meaning paid for cell plan, my internet, and my TV.
I set aside multiple savings accounts with automatic $50 deductions or more, after a while you lose track of them until tax time but the its nice to know you have money out there. So besides paying down debt create an automatic deposit into a savings account, preferably not at the same back your checking is at. Then just file it away in the back of your mind. Never touch it unless you lost all other means of having money for shelter and food.
You can be debt free on 20K if you live right. That is where most people get tripped up. They refuse to live within their means and the blame others (if not society). I can't count the number of people I work with who have notes or leases on cars that cost half it not more than half their gross pay. Throw in $100 a month for Smart phone plans; as in many who have one are not; and its easy to see why people aren't happy, they are too busy going broke to impress people, people who generally don't care. I certainly don't care what car you park in the lot, let alone I doubt anyone seeing your shiny 5 series/E-class/A6 really gives a flip when they likely will pass another dozen of the same that day.
Don't live to impress others with material wealth.
Wealthy Social Pathologists (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Princeton has now been able to PROVE that getting a serious illness, or divorced is harder on poor people. WOW! Amazing! GO IVY LEAGUE
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
My experience with the $75,000 mark (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently left a job where I was making under $75,000 and took a job where I am now making over $75,000. In the first case I was slightly below, and in the latter I am slightly above. In my previous job I had a lot of slack. I took the train to work. I worked pretty much whatever hours I felt like. I did not have very many responsibilities. In my current job I have less slack, I am working longer hours and I have significantly more responsibility.
In the previous job, my debt was not shrinking as quickly as I wanted it to. None the less I wasn't scratching out a subsistance living while trying to pare it down. I was going out to eat with my girlfriend a lot and making random purchases when I wanted things (PS3, HDTV, etc.) I was driving a beater car, but since I was taking the train, it didn't matter so much. In my new job, my debt is falling quickly and I'm driving a much newer car. I am still going out to eat a lot, but having obtained most of the crap that I wanted, I have extra money to pay down debt.
All in all, I'm not sure that I am any happer >$75,000 than I was at $75,000. I do know that I have less time to practice tai chi and kung fu and that irks me. I have a lot more responsibility, but I saw that coming. I'm now the guy we all read about with his Blackberry going off at all hours of the night. In life we have the opportunity to trade our time for someone else's money. They have things that need to be done, and they get to the point where their own time is so valuable that they can pay other people to do it for them. The more money that you make, the more of yourself and your time that you have to give up for it.
Based on my experience, $75,000 seems to be a good number (in Southern California) at least. A part of me thinks it is a little high. Someone who can content themselves with a simplistic life (as I wish I could, and I do half heartedly strive for), it is more than enough. Too far below it and you start having to make some sacrifices like living in not so great neighborhoods, driving older / less unreliable cars, not being able to go out whenever the mood strikes you. Yet once you get above it, you start giving up yourself. You enter that realm of responsibility where you are the go to person when things need to get done. You lose the ability to tell others, "I will deal with it tomorrow" in all but the most extreme cases. In Southern California the $75,000 mark seems to be the bottom of the "You can really do what you say you can do" pay scale. It only goes up from there as you continue to prove yourself, but you get more money at the expense of your free time.
Personally, I think I reached a little too far. I would have rather stayed below $75,000 and enjoyed the slack.
But this is America .... (Score:3, Insightful)
Did they go by how much a person makes or how much a person spends?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They went by salary, using the usual "family of four" criterion.
They didn't subtract taxes or scale for localized cost-of-living.
As science, it's bollocks. As politics, it's solid gold.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Please take note of this important number. (Score:3, Insightful)
So if this is to be believed, then with a current world population of 6,697,254,041 (*75,000)
It would cost 502,294,053,075,000 per year
so 500 Trillion dollars a year for EVERYone to be happy.
Current world gdp is 61 Trillion.
My Utopian dream bubble has been popped.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)