https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5bm4b/m...study-says
EXCERPTS: More than 10 years ago, researchers suggested that money can buy happiness, and that it costs about $75,000 a year. A complicated and nuanced study by Nobel Prize winning economists explained that money increased happiness, but that things tended to plateau around $75,000. Any less and sadness increased, but earning more didn’t add to a sense of wellbeing. The research worked its way into opinion pages and launched a thousand blogs.
The obvious appeal of the idea is that money can buy happiness in the sense that it can provide for basic necessities and stability, but not much beyond that, meaning that multi billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are much richer but not all that happier than the rest of us. The only problem with this idea is that it's wrong, and that we'd all obviously be much happier if we had millions of dollars. A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that the $75,000 figure is bullshit and that happiness continues to increase past that threshold.
The study, titled "Experienced well-being rises with income", even above $75,000 per year, doesn’t mince words. “There was … no evidence of an income threshold at which experienced and evaluative well-being diverged, suggesting that higher incomes are associated with both feeling better day-to-day and being more satisfied with life overall.”
The new study is the work of Matt Killingsworth, a senior fellow at Wharton School for Business at the University of Pennsylvania. His study is based on 1,725,994 samples pulled from 33,391 employed adults in the United States. [...] Killingsworth also collected basic data about his subject’s income and life in general. ... He believes the difference in results is down to a difference in sample size and data collection method. “Arguably, I have some of the best data that exists on how people are really feeling in daily life,” he said.
Killingsworth said he thinks the original study is more nuanced than it’s gotten credit for and he also understands why it’s become a rooted part of pop-psychology. “The nice way to look at it is the appealing notion that, ‘If I can just get to some level of income, I can stop worrying about money,’” he said. “I think that’s kind of attractive. And even if what I’ve found is true, that $75,000 isn’t a key threshold, there probably is some value in bringing as many people as possible up to some basic level of financial security.”
He also stressed that money isn’t everything, and that the pursuit of wealth itself isn’t a means to happiness. [...] One thing was universally true across all his subjects. Anyone who conflated money with personal success was miserable. “It’s especially bad if you don’t earn much money,” he said. “But there doesn’t seem to be any point where conflating personal success with your financial outcome is a good thing...having more [money] is good, but being fixated on it and using it to define your self worth is probably not such a great idea.” (MORE - details)
- - - - - -
Cynical Sindee: So bear in mind that it's not just Leftarian dogma and social agenda that the later revised or often non-replicated, debunked, retracted, publish or perish, "compromised by university policies or funding-sources" studies of the human-oriented sciences may try to conform/adjust to in terms of their conclusions. (Or even with respect to their very set-up beforehand to get _X_ results.) But also some of the traditional platitudes they will sentimentally cater to, especially if it's one that makes the underclasses feel better. As with that earlier research emphasizing that there wasn't more happiness beyond the $75,000 point. Even the newer study's architect seems to be hedging a bit in that respect, to soothe the common person's mindset.
EXCERPTS: More than 10 years ago, researchers suggested that money can buy happiness, and that it costs about $75,000 a year. A complicated and nuanced study by Nobel Prize winning economists explained that money increased happiness, but that things tended to plateau around $75,000. Any less and sadness increased, but earning more didn’t add to a sense of wellbeing. The research worked its way into opinion pages and launched a thousand blogs.
The obvious appeal of the idea is that money can buy happiness in the sense that it can provide for basic necessities and stability, but not much beyond that, meaning that multi billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are much richer but not all that happier than the rest of us. The only problem with this idea is that it's wrong, and that we'd all obviously be much happier if we had millions of dollars. A new study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that the $75,000 figure is bullshit and that happiness continues to increase past that threshold.
The study, titled "Experienced well-being rises with income", even above $75,000 per year, doesn’t mince words. “There was … no evidence of an income threshold at which experienced and evaluative well-being diverged, suggesting that higher incomes are associated with both feeling better day-to-day and being more satisfied with life overall.”
The new study is the work of Matt Killingsworth, a senior fellow at Wharton School for Business at the University of Pennsylvania. His study is based on 1,725,994 samples pulled from 33,391 employed adults in the United States. [...] Killingsworth also collected basic data about his subject’s income and life in general. ... He believes the difference in results is down to a difference in sample size and data collection method. “Arguably, I have some of the best data that exists on how people are really feeling in daily life,” he said.
Killingsworth said he thinks the original study is more nuanced than it’s gotten credit for and he also understands why it’s become a rooted part of pop-psychology. “The nice way to look at it is the appealing notion that, ‘If I can just get to some level of income, I can stop worrying about money,’” he said. “I think that’s kind of attractive. And even if what I’ve found is true, that $75,000 isn’t a key threshold, there probably is some value in bringing as many people as possible up to some basic level of financial security.”
He also stressed that money isn’t everything, and that the pursuit of wealth itself isn’t a means to happiness. [...] One thing was universally true across all his subjects. Anyone who conflated money with personal success was miserable. “It’s especially bad if you don’t earn much money,” he said. “But there doesn’t seem to be any point where conflating personal success with your financial outcome is a good thing...having more [money] is good, but being fixated on it and using it to define your self worth is probably not such a great idea.” (MORE - details)
- - - - - -
Cynical Sindee: So bear in mind that it's not just Leftarian dogma and social agenda that the later revised or often non-replicated, debunked, retracted, publish or perish, "compromised by university policies or funding-sources" studies of the human-oriented sciences may try to conform/adjust to in terms of their conclusions. (Or even with respect to their very set-up beforehand to get _X_ results.) But also some of the traditional platitudes they will sentimentally cater to, especially if it's one that makes the underclasses feel better. As with that earlier research emphasizing that there wasn't more happiness beyond the $75,000 point. Even the newer study's architect seems to be hedging a bit in that respect, to soothe the common person's mindset.