> I find it increasingly bizarre, day by day, that people are so fixated on money and not value, or meaningfulness.
...or happiness.
I recently read "Stumbling on Happiness" which had an interesting discussion on the fact that there are several studies that show that pay raises up to around $45k per year result in an increase in happiness. But after that, an increases in salary brings only a marginal increase in happiness, if that.
So the question he raised is that if one doesn't receive additional happiness from earning more than $45k, what is the reason for doing so? Most other human actions are geared towards happiness. It really got me thinking about the subject.
Yes. I do research on the economics of happiness, and I do lectures/seminars on it occasionally. In these sessions, I often can't get general agreement that earning money is just a means to the end of being happy. Some students will maintain that earning money is the ultimate goal. Which is frankly weird and a little scary.
I think the point of the $45k/year figure, though, is that you get no extra happiness from spending more than $45k/year. But being paid more than that helps 'keep score' in the sense that you know that someone really values your work -- particularly if you're able to compare with what other people are being paid.
Edit: I also sometimes wonder if there are differences related to social safety nets, and particularly health. It seems in the US that you need $millions to be completely certain that health issues couldn't financially ruin (or kill) you, so more money provides more security even when you're already fabulously rich. Whereas in most of Europe, if you're sick, you get treatment, so if you have a million euros in the bank you basically can't get any more security from money.
The optimal philanthropy community is trying to figure out how to convey these messages: 1) more money doesn't directly buy more happiness; and 2) more money DOES buy better world outcomes (which probably leads to more happiness overall).
It seems like it should be possible to convince people with some disposable income to put a substantial fraction of their extra money into actually saving the world. Giving What We Can (http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/) is one of the organizations trying to do this. Givewell (http://givewell.org) is doing research on cost-effectiveness -- and there's a HUGE range of cost-effectiveness among charities.
Eh. Anyone who piled up a hunk of savings and invested it in the 2000s saw it get decimated or hemimated and took a hit against happiness. Taking more vacation or a fun lower paying job might well have been higher utility.
But yeah, having a savings cushion while unemployment is rampant is satisfying.
I paid off $35k worth of student loan debt within 3 years of graduating. While I was in debt, earning more to pay it off was a great motivator. Now that I'm debt free and have my basic living costs covered without worry, more money just does not motivate me anymore.
The most depressing comment I read on HN was one guy telling a story about a sales manager he knew that encouraged his sales people to go into debt so they would be more motivated to earn more and therefore, make more sales.
...or happiness.
I recently read "Stumbling on Happiness" which had an interesting discussion on the fact that there are several studies that show that pay raises up to around $45k per year result in an increase in happiness. But after that, an increases in salary brings only a marginal increase in happiness, if that.
So the question he raised is that if one doesn't receive additional happiness from earning more than $45k, what is the reason for doing so? Most other human actions are geared towards happiness. It really got me thinking about the subject.