> Dunn said that many people might be happier if they focus on the best ways to use the money they have, rather than on getting more of it.
So out of touch. Sure, the >$200k bracket saying they also need a 50% raise to be happier is a bit rich, but for a anyone else, especially <$100k, people don’t have time to make their money work better for them.
The whole complaint about wage stagnation is that people need to work multiple jobs, commute long hours, etc so they don’t have time to eat well, go to the doctor, spend time with kids, or whatever they need to be happier. Whoever says otherwise either doesn’t live in our society or is already over the wage hump of living comfortably.
It'd be so nice if basic needs were just met as part of the societal contract. Then work is the thing we do to fund the extras. People who can't work for whatever reason don't have to fight to survive and people who want to work or have more ambition can actually do something with the money they make.
I hate how the current system is so dead-set on everyone providing every need for themselves while bailing out and subsidizing large corporations.
Consumer spending comprises 68% of GDP, but instead of getting some stability in exchange for driving the largest economy on the planet (by nominal GDP), we have to pay extra taxes on the already-taxed money that we have just for the privilege of buying our own necessities.
What does that look like in terms of actual implementation? Also, where do we draw the line between basic needs and extras? Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?
I think it may be fair to also obligate able-bodied, of-age, individuals to reciprocate/contribute back in some manner as part of the social contract to receive the benefits to the fullest extent (and those opportunities are obligated to be offered). However I don’t know how this would be implemented equitably or without excessive overhead.
Not to mention everything costs more when you have less. Bad credit score will have you paying more for your car or house than someone else. Working two jobs you're probably likely to eat worse and more convenient food which costs more.
While wages did obviously start to increase when the economy shifted from selling things to selling time (after all, wages weren't a thing beforehand, so they had nowhere to go but up!) incomes have remained stagnant as far back as the records go. Now that most everyone sells time instead of things, wages and income are basically the same thing, meaning that wages can only increase further if incomes also increase, but that has never happened at least since we started keeping records.
So – Would people actually be happier if they made the same amount of money, but did so selling something other than time? Even if the amount of time required to produce that something was the same as the time input they are giving in exchange for wages?
The article even alludes to them asking the wrong question when they say that people who value time over money tend to be happier. Perhaps they should ask something to the effect of how much money they need to feel secure about their needs being met.
I've essentially been adjusting my saving/investing to keep my take home at about the same amount since I've reached a certain threshold.
Now, I wouldn't say no to more, but I also don't feel I need more necessarily. Even now, I have about a year's worth of money tucked away "just in case".
And the major reason for the saving/investing is to be able to generate enough cash to cover bills so I'm not reliant on a job for anything.
Well, the question was "How much does your annual salary need to be for you to feel happy/less stressed?". So it's a relative position: how much more money to subjectively improve your life? In that sense it makes sense, given the general diminishing returns of the utility of money, that those with a higher salary would say they need more additional money to be happier: even if they're relatively happy already, it's not something a relatively smaller amount of money is going to change much.
I find the inflection in the percentages somewhat interesting: it reduces from the lower to higher incomes until about 150k, then increases a lot. I wonder if that represents the salary range where financial independence starts to come into sight: then the responses there would be reflecting an estimate of the amount of money they'd need to retire early and live their current lifestyle off their savings.
I will never forget starting off my career as a 'contract employee' with no benefits. Working long hours I developed quite a few health problems within the first year. It was nearly impossible to see a doctor and when I finally did I had to fight the insurance company for weeks to cover a visit.
I was making every single meal to save money, my supervisor used to sneak us food from the c-suite catered lunches after we were banned from going upstairs to scavenge their leftovers.
When my contract was up they offered me another contract, after a year I expected to be offered full-time employment with benefits. I asked around to see if this was normal and met someone who had been a contract employee for 5 years. I quit the next week.
I think California passed a law preventing contractor classification abuse shortly after this but it left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.
> left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.
No different than culture in general, is it? If you meet someone walking down the street, you're not likely to hound them to make sure everything is okay and if there is anything you can do to make their stroll better. You are bound to just naturally assume that because they are walking down the street that they are happy to be there and everything is good. You're apt to assume that unless they cry out for help, they don't need another thought.
But maybe they really do need help. You clearly did need the help, but as you kept showing up, there was no reason to think something was wrong in your case either.
I wish they had a version of the figure with a log scale, since it seems like people of all income brackets except the very lowest say a 30-50% raise will make them happy.
It's boring because everyone else is on the treadmill and has no time to entertain you. Maybe first week or two, but the daily reality hits everyone and the basic fact is people need money and the best way we all have to make money is to work. So unless you give everyone around you money they have to work and cannot hang out with you ...
As you access higher incomes the possibilities of things you could buy expands, thus you want more and more money to afford them, thus requiring bigger pay raises.
Incrementally increasing expenses as your income raises seems dumb, for me there are only three financial levels:
1. Can't afford lifestyle.
2. Can afford lifestyle.
3. Can retire.
Raises and budgeting can take you from 1 -> 2 quickly, but going from 2 -> 3 would require such a humongous raise that even a 10% one would be pointless.
Definitely a privileged take, but it does kinda suck when you are in the "Well at this income level I can safely retire in ~15 years... see ya then". Do you just grind it out safely? Or do you take risks to see if you can jump to number 3 immediately?
Affording a lifestyle is largely about stability of housing costs. If you don't have at least $30k, you can't afford a house, and thus are subject to the whims of your landlord and the rental market. If you have $30k-$300k, you either just bought a house or are looking to buy one (somewhere...). If you have $300k-$3m assets you probably have already owned a house for 10 years and have substantially lower housing costs, so you can coast at your current lifestyle. If you have $3m (including a house) you can retire.
So much this... You hit closer to the 5% mark, and you still have to work and struggle. Having a job hunt take 7 months after surgery is pretty rough when you only had enough set aside for a couple months. You come out in debt up to your eyeballs and have to make as much as before or you're going to have to sell your home and start over at 0. Now looking at 5-10 years to get back to good.
Moving to a better neighborhood, getting a new car next year, or getting more repairs done on your home start taking a back seat. It's hard to even imagine making half as much and trying to hold anything together.
And you're seeing jobs that literally pay what you made 15 years ago for "expert" level experience.
That's probably part of it. In my observation income changes its meaning starting at a certain Point. Most people I know making upwards of 200k EUR pa don't want or need more money to buy more stuff but to keep score with their peers and, in more extreme cases, to distort public opinion -- even if it is only about the local Kindergarten.
At a certain point though you start saving or investing hand over fist the excess you cannot manage to spend. A coca cola costs the same no matter how much you make after all.
Right but the salary ranges here are not that tipping point. Sure, a coke is a coke, but how many people can even consider the other options when it's 5 dozen for $10 for that or 5.99 for 8 Aura Boras? Having significant excess income allows you to stop making minimum choices and start choosing for quality, which leads to lots of benefits. For example, you may want to source your groceries from local farms and small grocers, which keeps money in the local economy rather than pushing it back to shareholders at kroger or amazon. You can afford high quality natural materials for your clothing a la the boots problem, leading to both greater longevity of your own personal wardrobe and also a reduction in microplastics down the road. You can consider the full range of brands of sodas, some of which are both smaller creators and perhaps zero calorie too, making you slightly healthier and at the same time pushing competition in favor of newer innovative companies.
I think what we are seeing in these data is that people with less than enough money to have even started to conceive of these decision points simply don't factor it into their perceived desires for more income at all, and that has a sort of cliff effect on desired salary increases that falls off once people actually get out of the rut of survival wages. No one at 200k is being forced to buy the cheapest everything and pinching the pennies, but theyre also in no way "set for life" unless they've indeed been doing so.
https://archive.ph/xBGX4
> Dunn said that many people might be happier if they focus on the best ways to use the money they have, rather than on getting more of it.
So out of touch. Sure, the >$200k bracket saying they also need a 50% raise to be happier is a bit rich, but for a anyone else, especially <$100k, people don’t have time to make their money work better for them.
The whole complaint about wage stagnation is that people need to work multiple jobs, commute long hours, etc so they don’t have time to eat well, go to the doctor, spend time with kids, or whatever they need to be happier. Whoever says otherwise either doesn’t live in our society or is already over the wage hump of living comfortably.
It'd be so nice if basic needs were just met as part of the societal contract. Then work is the thing we do to fund the extras. People who can't work for whatever reason don't have to fight to survive and people who want to work or have more ambition can actually do something with the money they make.
I hate how the current system is so dead-set on everyone providing every need for themselves while bailing out and subsidizing large corporations.
Consumer spending comprises 68% of GDP, but instead of getting some stability in exchange for driving the largest economy on the planet (by nominal GDP), we have to pay extra taxes on the already-taxed money that we have just for the privilege of buying our own necessities.
What does that look like in terms of actual implementation? Also, where do we draw the line between basic needs and extras? Finally, who drives garbage trucks, picks food in hot fields, delivers goods by driving all night, etc when they have all of their basic needs met for free?
22 replies →
I think it may be fair to also obligate able-bodied, of-age, individuals to reciprocate/contribute back in some manner as part of the social contract to receive the benefits to the fullest extent (and those opportunities are obligated to be offered). However I don’t know how this would be implemented equitably or without excessive overhead.
1 reply →
Not to mention everything costs more when you have less. Bad credit score will have you paying more for your car or house than someone else. Working two jobs you're probably likely to eat worse and more convenient food which costs more.
While wages did obviously start to increase when the economy shifted from selling things to selling time (after all, wages weren't a thing beforehand, so they had nowhere to go but up!) incomes have remained stagnant as far back as the records go. Now that most everyone sells time instead of things, wages and income are basically the same thing, meaning that wages can only increase further if incomes also increase, but that has never happened at least since we started keeping records.
So – Would people actually be happier if they made the same amount of money, but did so selling something other than time? Even if the amount of time required to produce that something was the same as the time input they are giving in exchange for wages?
The article even alludes to them asking the wrong question when they say that people who value time over money tend to be happier. Perhaps they should ask something to the effect of how much money they need to feel secure about their needs being met.
Here is a better figure highlighting the difference between the desired and the current salary: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9aqrK/apple.png
That is so weird.
I've essentially been adjusting my saving/investing to keep my take home at about the same amount since I've reached a certain threshold.
Now, I wouldn't say no to more, but I also don't feel I need more necessarily. Even now, I have about a year's worth of money tucked away "just in case".
And the major reason for the saving/investing is to be able to generate enough cash to cover bills so I'm not reliant on a job for anything.
Well, the question was "How much does your annual salary need to be for you to feel happy/less stressed?". So it's a relative position: how much more money to subjectively improve your life? In that sense it makes sense, given the general diminishing returns of the utility of money, that those with a higher salary would say they need more additional money to be happier: even if they're relatively happy already, it's not something a relatively smaller amount of money is going to change much.
I find the inflection in the percentages somewhat interesting: it reduces from the lower to higher incomes until about 150k, then increases a lot. I wonder if that represents the salary range where financial independence starts to come into sight: then the responses there would be reflecting an estimate of the amount of money they'd need to retire early and live their current lifestyle off their savings.
And where is this from?
Wow. This is very interesting.
I will never forget starting off my career as a 'contract employee' with no benefits. Working long hours I developed quite a few health problems within the first year. It was nearly impossible to see a doctor and when I finally did I had to fight the insurance company for weeks to cover a visit.
I was making every single meal to save money, my supervisor used to sneak us food from the c-suite catered lunches after we were banned from going upstairs to scavenge their leftovers.
When my contract was up they offered me another contract, after a year I expected to be offered full-time employment with benefits. I asked around to see if this was normal and met someone who had been a contract employee for 5 years. I quit the next week.
I think California passed a law preventing contractor classification abuse shortly after this but it left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.
> left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.
No different than culture in general, is it? If you meet someone walking down the street, you're not likely to hound them to make sure everything is okay and if there is anything you can do to make their stroll better. You are bound to just naturally assume that because they are walking down the street that they are happy to be there and everything is good. You're apt to assume that unless they cry out for help, they don't need another thought.
But maybe they really do need help. You clearly did need the help, but as you kept showing up, there was no reason to think something was wrong in your case either.
I wish they had a version of the figure with a log scale, since it seems like people of all income brackets except the very lowest say a 30-50% raise will make them happy.
People don't need a pay rise; they need a way to leave the treadmill.
I left the treadmill, it was so boring. I voluntarily went back on it, it is nice to know I can hop off.
But I can't hop off, its too boring. Seriously.
It's boring because everyone else is on the treadmill and has no time to entertain you. Maybe first week or two, but the daily reality hits everyone and the basic fact is people need money and the best way we all have to make money is to work. So unless you give everyone around you money they have to work and cannot hang out with you ...
6 replies →
I think in the middle, you reach a point where you think, "Wow, this is more than I ever imagined, this must be the most you can make."
As a kid raised in poverty, that's definitely what I thought.
But the higher you get, the greater your visibility of folks making even more money.
This is coming from someone who started at 60k, currently at >200k.
As you access higher incomes the possibilities of things you could buy expands, thus you want more and more money to afford them, thus requiring bigger pay raises.
Incrementally increasing expenses as your income raises seems dumb, for me there are only three financial levels:
1. Can't afford lifestyle.
2. Can afford lifestyle.
3. Can retire.
Raises and budgeting can take you from 1 -> 2 quickly, but going from 2 -> 3 would require such a humongous raise that even a 10% one would be pointless.
Definitely a privileged take, but it does kinda suck when you are in the "Well at this income level I can safely retire in ~15 years... see ya then". Do you just grind it out safely? Or do you take risks to see if you can jump to number 3 immediately?
Affording a lifestyle is largely about stability of housing costs. If you don't have at least $30k, you can't afford a house, and thus are subject to the whims of your landlord and the rental market. If you have $30k-$300k, you either just bought a house or are looking to buy one (somewhere...). If you have $300k-$3m assets you probably have already owned a house for 10 years and have substantially lower housing costs, so you can coast at your current lifestyle. If you have $3m (including a house) you can retire.
So much this... You hit closer to the 5% mark, and you still have to work and struggle. Having a job hunt take 7 months after surgery is pretty rough when you only had enough set aside for a couple months. You come out in debt up to your eyeballs and have to make as much as before or you're going to have to sell your home and start over at 0. Now looking at 5-10 years to get back to good.
Moving to a better neighborhood, getting a new car next year, or getting more repairs done on your home start taking a back seat. It's hard to even imagine making half as much and trying to hold anything together.
And you're seeing jobs that literally pay what you made 15 years ago for "expert" level experience.
I don't know what to think any more.
That's probably part of it. In my observation income changes its meaning starting at a certain Point. Most people I know making upwards of 200k EUR pa don't want or need more money to buy more stuff but to keep score with their peers and, in more extreme cases, to distort public opinion -- even if it is only about the local Kindergarten.
Yup. These days I pretty much have to spend like $3k on a purse.
At a certain point though you start saving or investing hand over fist the excess you cannot manage to spend. A coca cola costs the same no matter how much you make after all.
Right but the salary ranges here are not that tipping point. Sure, a coke is a coke, but how many people can even consider the other options when it's 5 dozen for $10 for that or 5.99 for 8 Aura Boras? Having significant excess income allows you to stop making minimum choices and start choosing for quality, which leads to lots of benefits. For example, you may want to source your groceries from local farms and small grocers, which keeps money in the local economy rather than pushing it back to shareholders at kroger or amazon. You can afford high quality natural materials for your clothing a la the boots problem, leading to both greater longevity of your own personal wardrobe and also a reduction in microplastics down the road. You can consider the full range of brands of sodas, some of which are both smaller creators and perhaps zero calorie too, making you slightly healthier and at the same time pushing competition in favor of newer innovative companies.
I think what we are seeing in these data is that people with less than enough money to have even started to conceive of these decision points simply don't factor it into their perceived desires for more income at all, and that has a sort of cliff effect on desired salary increases that falls off once people actually get out of the rut of survival wages. No one at 200k is being forced to buy the cheapest everything and pinching the pennies, but theyre also in no way "set for life" unless they've indeed been doing so.
1 reply →