• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Happiness Peaks at $75,000

Cameron

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
6,271
Reaction score
5,783
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
The Exact Income You Need To Be Happy Is... - $75K, assuming you've also got friends

How much money is enough money? Exactly $75,000, according to a new study. Economist Angus Deaton and Nobel prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman looked at data from the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, and found that people reported becoming happier as their household income increased—until it hit $75,000. After that, their daily emotional well-being flat-lined. “Your emotional well-being is as good as it's going to get at $75,000,” Deaton tells Gallup's Management Journal. “It’s like you hit some sort of ceiling.”
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
Mate, Happiness is always $9 away.

w1.jpg
 
I go against the flow, I guess - I don't need people to feel happy.

And my husband's pay nudges that 75K mark - But that seems to have the opposite effect on me - I'm a bit envious of his success.
 
while i don't equate salary with happiness, a $75k salary would solve some problems.
 
Is this before or after taxes?
 
This is old data, I've heard the 75,000 figure before. Wonder why it's breaking news now?
 
Notice it says that happiness flatlines, rather than declines after 75k. I think this is just the point at which financial woes stop dominating your life. Beyond that, all other problems are the same as anyone else.

Just an interpretation, don't know if it's true...
 
Deuce said:
Why not?

21
Click to expand...

Start with this quote

But people with an annual household income of more than $75,000 don't have commensurately higher levels of emotional wellbeing, even though their life evaluation rating continues to increase.
Click to expand...

Why did they simply ignore their own findings that shows "life evaluation ratings" increase after you cross over the $75k mark? If I understand the study, life evaluation is long term in nature and emotional wellbeing is how one feels on any given day. Why did they link "happiness" to the one day rating? It seem to me if a person has a very high life evaluation they will be happy over a longer period of time. Who cares if a person had a bad day and they make $75k or $500k a year. They said making goals, achieving goals and making good money improves a person's life evaluation ...... so they are happier. The authors reveal their bias when they say stupid **** like this .......

Emotional wellbeing may not improve with additional money, Dr. Deaton and Dr. Kahneman think, because of several factors. One is that humans adapt quickly to the things money can buy. A mansion is a thrill the first month you live in it, but it's just a house the second.

Moreover, other research suggests that wealthy people don't take as much pleasure in actual pleasure as do poor people. In one test, social researchers primed some test subjects to feel rich and found that the "wealthy" subjects didn't enjoy luxury chocolate as much as the control group, the "non-wealthy," did.:lamo

And Dr. Kahneman and Dr. Deaton believe that when it comes to the very wealthy with high life satisfaction, their evaluations may be influenced more by keeping score than by purchasing power. If life evaluation is based on reviewing how much progress people have made in their lives, money may become a marker of success.
Click to expand...

So what? They make a bunch of money and their long term view of their lives is positive.

So if you make a bunch of money your daily emotional score may be the same as the $75k guy but your long term life evaluation is considerably higher.............you tell me which one you would rather be.
 
So...we'll assume this 75K is AFTER taxes, as in, take home...which means it's more like 125K. Next question is, is this per earner per household? Or is this per household?

And where? Not for nothing, if it's 75K per household, that's not even enough to buy a small house in CT. CERTAINLY not going to make you happy.

I think the real issue here is that some folks seem to have confused less stress with general happyness. The only thing making more money does for a person is reduce certains causes of stress...especially for married couples. Past that, it can only buy you things you want...which is not going to bring you happyness. It will bring you fleeting moments of joy, sure. But just like the kid that gets the toy he always wanted at christmas, a week later, that coveted item is in a closet somewhere, collecting dust.

To quote Dr. Dennis Leary....
"Happyness comes in small doses, folks. It's an orgasm, a cigarette, some beers with friends."
 
I'm way past 75k... and i'm one happy motherhumper.

not sure money creates happiness... but not having it sure does impede happiness.
 
I've been both broke, and had some extra. I've been happy and miserable. Enough to know that money =/= happiness.

On the other hand, I've always said that while money can't buy happiness, I'd prefer finding out first hand.
 
KevinKohler said:
So...we'll assume this 75K is AFTER taxes, as in, take home...which means it's more like 125K. Next question is, is this per earner per household? Or is this per household?

And where? Not for nothing, if it's 75K per household, that's not even enough to buy a small house in CT. CERTAINLY not going to make you happy.

I think the real issue here is that some folks seem to have confused less stress with general happyness. The only thing making more money does for a person is reduce certains causes of stress...especially for married couples. Past that, it can only buy you things you want...which is not going to bring you happyness. It will bring you fleeting moments of joy, sure. But just like the kid that gets the toy he always wanted at christmas, a week later, that coveted item is in a closet somewhere, collecting dust.

To quote Dr. Dennis Leary....
"Happyness comes in small doses, folks. It's an orgasm, a cigarette, some beers with friends."
Click to expand...


One big problem: Most people don't make anywhere near 75K take-home-per-household. (Let alone per individual paycheck). If you wonder why the peasants are revolting, well here's your answer... when you can't afford what your society touts as the basic standard of living, you tend to be disenchanted with your lot... and half of America is NEVER going to bring home 75k a year.
 
Goshin said:
One big problem: Most people don't make anywhere near 75K take-home-per-household. (Let alone per individual paycheck). If you wonder why the peasants are revolting, well here's your answer... when you can't afford what your society touts as the basic standard of living, you tend to be disenchanted with your lot... and half of America is NEVER going to bring home 75k a year.
Click to expand...

Eh...I'd say that the majority of people DO bring that home in a combined income...that's roughly 50K per year, for two people, in a household. In 2003, the national median income was 45K per person. Can't find more recent data.

I pretty much agree with everything else.
 
KevinKohler said:
Eh...I'd say that the majority of people DO bring that home in a combined income...that's roughly 50K per year, for two people, in a household. In 2003, the national median income was 45K per person. Can't find more recent data.

I pretty much agree with everything else.
Click to expand...

If the median income was roughly 45k, it would STILL mean half of all households did not bring home 75k a year after taxes IF both Mr and Mrs worked and made the same money. Actually the odds are pretty good, if they have kids, that whoever is the primary caregiver makes less and possibly only works part-time. Then there are households with only one income earner... the other may be unable to work, unable to find a job, or there may not be another person at all.

So, we're still looking at half of households not reaching that mark, and probably a third not even coming close.
 
KevinKohler said:
Eh...I'd say that the majority of people DO bring that home in a combined income...that's roughly 50K per year, for two people, in a household. In 2003, the national median income was 45K per person. Can't find more recent data.

I pretty much agree with everything else.
Click to expand...

median household income is 49k per year.

US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom