1. I need some sort of reference point as to where the happy people earning $75,000 are living. This hardly needs to be said on HN, but $75,000 in West Virginia is a lot different than $75,000 in the Bay Area or NYC (for that matter, it says nothing of taxes either).
2. The article claims that people's "satisfaction" continues to increase the more they earn (beyond $75,000), but doesn't say why that doesn't increase their happiness. Is the increase in "satisfaction" being offset by something else, or is "satisfaction" (as they define it) simply orthogonal to happiness?
The reference is the sample used for the survey. Select a different sample and you get an entirely different result. It depends on not just what cost of living is but how much your friends and neighbors make. From this result alone you'd conclude that medieval people lived in utter despair, but I'm pretty sure that was not the case. So it's kind of pointless.
Your first point is raised in some form nearly every time this comes up. But what is forgotten is the value of living in these more expensive places. $75k in NYC/SF may buy you less, but you get more free things of value, in the form of quality peers, access to eduction/investment, etc.
It's only an anecdote, but: My income would be the same regardless of where I live, and I'm pretty sure my choice to live in NYC provides me more happiness than most other possible choices.
I was actually at my happiest when I made about $75K in the bay area. I lived in a house in SF with all my friends and I was a lower level startup grunt and didn't care too much about my job. I just figured that I could always get another stupid $75K programming job. So I did my best at work but also spent a lot of time goofing off, hanging out with my bros, going snowboarding on weekends, riding my bike around, etc.
When I started making about twice that I realized I was in a unique position and better buckle down and be more serious about my job, which was far less fun and often quite stressful.
Once you get beyond that it's still not as fun but at least one is banking a lot of money so when the gravy train ends you can just retire to somewhere cheap for a few years.
Another issue: perhaps the increase in happiness with income (I) reported for I < 75k is due to the fact that jobs with higher income have nicer work conditions and colleagues. If this is true it should be possible to make people happier without paying them more. Just arrange matters so that their jobs are more pleasant.
It was always puzzling to me as a child that the people doing the hardest work are paid the least money. (hard in the sense that it physically drains you, and your whole body aches)
> Is the increase in "satisfaction" being offset by something else, or is "satisfaction" (as they define it) simply orthogonal to happiness?
I know a little bit about these kinds of studies. One of them is measuring minute by minute "emotional" sorts of happiness, that's usually what they label "happiness" or "experiential happiness." The other is when you sit and evaluate your life, they call that satisfaction or "reflective happiness."
Actually, the results shouldn't be so surprising. We've only such a capacity for neurons and chemicals firing in our brain, of course a millionaire can't feel 100 times more satiated from food than a guy making $75,000.
Honestly though, I don't believe in experiential happiness, it doesn't matter so much to me. It's just biochemistry, animals feel that kind of happiness. Reflective happiness, thinking happiness, "satisfaction" - that's the one I optimize for. The biochemistry takes care of itself if you live good habits of gratitude, good friends, doing meaningful things, and take care of your basic health.
No matter how many good works you do, how much charity you do, how much money you make, your basic "happiness" or minute by minute emotional happiness only can get so high. But reflective happiness has almost an unlimited capacity, and doing more things you find meaningful does bring that up.
This is such a joke. I hear about crap like this all the time from my gf who is studying at Hunter College in NYC to become a teacher. The ease with which some people can marginalize the ambitions of others amazes me.
Here is a quote from a poster in one of her class rooms: "behind every great fortune is a crime".
I don't understand what you are saying. Who is marginalizing the ambitions of others? Why is it easy? I take it you think that the study is invalid because you called it "crap" and a "joke". I'm honestly not sure - why is it a joke or crap?
Did the poster in the classroom provide any of the many examples of fortunes that began with crime? To say that "every" great fortune began with a crime is false, but certainly many did.
Is it just me or does this sound like a bunch of garbage that only helps justify effective salary targets and caps "for the good of the worker"?
It's like a lot of articles that say "you should pay your coders well, but most of them don't care about salary beyond a certain point, they'd rather work on interesting problems." What?! Sounds like bullshit justification to me. Sure it's nice to work on interesting problems, but isn't it nicer to work on interesting problems AND get paid well?
1. I need some sort of reference point as to where the happy people earning $75,000 are living. This hardly needs to be said on HN, but $75,000 in West Virginia is a lot different than $75,000 in the Bay Area or NYC (for that matter, it says nothing of taxes either).
2. The article claims that people's "satisfaction" continues to increase the more they earn (beyond $75,000), but doesn't say why that doesn't increase their happiness. Is the increase in "satisfaction" being offset by something else, or is "satisfaction" (as they define it) simply orthogonal to happiness?