21–30 of 116 posts
An analogy I like is if you ask a 'tourist' about his memories of a place, you're likely to get a very different answer than if you ask a 'traveler'. In fact, in the former case, you might even get a rather drab answer. The latter will inspire you.
Last time I read the number was 12,000: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07... I must say, I got by with 12k (what I made in 2004), but if any emergency would have happened I would have been in trouble. 60k is very comfortable here in Texas. I also know some very miserable millionaires who are depressed no matter how many pills they take.
Another interpretation is that it currently requires $60,000/year for a US citizen to not be lacking the means to fulfill one or another step on Maslow's hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs Given that the [2008] US GDP is $14.4 trillion/year, and there are ~300 million US citizens, it turns out we're each, on average, creating $48,000/year in value. So, on average, each citizen is $12,0…
Because income is heavily skewed by outliers (e.g. Bill Gates), it makes more sense to look at the median income alongside the average income. Median household income with 1.35 earners and 2.57 household members is $44,389. That's less than the per capita average of $48,000, and it's spread over 2.5 people. Turns out that about 70% of the households in the United States are going to be below $60,000. Divided by the n…
Another interpretation is that it currently requires $60,000/year for a US citizen to not be lacking the means to fulfill one or another step on Maslow's hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslows_hierarchy_of_needs Given that the [2008] US GDP is $14.4 trillion/year, and there are ~300 million US citizens, it turns out we're each, on average, creating $48,000/year in value. So, on average, each citizen is $12,0…
so most people are more like 28K short of 'happiness'
If I made, say, $1 million/year, I think I'd be happier -- for the simple reason that I could afford to only work one day per week (or a few months per year, or work for 5 years and then semi-retire, etc.). That would mean a lot more freedom to choose how to spend my time, to travel, and so on. (Of course, I'd probably end up doing something similar to "work" during a lot of my spare time, but there's an amazing diff…
But, as one who took a day off, and came back to 192 email, at least 10-15 of which really needed me to pay attention - I don't understand how to leave the work place gracefully. It's almost like I have to hire my replacement, and transition all my responsibilities to them prior to taking any time off.
I couldn't agree more with the author of the story - once the basics like shelter, housing, food, water and Medical Care are taken care of, spending quality time with friends and family really is the key to happiness.
I think that neither money nor happiness is the key but rather contentment. Life dishes up the good and bad to us all, and we often can't do anything about that, but learning to be content with what we have is an achievable and worthwhile goal for all - and also a better measure than money can ever be of whether we have lived our lives well.
If I made, say, $1 million/year, I think I'd be happier -- for the simple reason that I could afford to only work one day per week (or a few months per year, or work for 5 years and then semi-retire, etc.). That would mean a lot more freedom to choose how to spend my time, to travel, and so on. (Of course, I'd probably end up doing something similar to "work" during a lot of my spare time, but there's an amazing diff…
This concurs with a lot of other research that suggests that human beings are terrible at estimating what makes them happy. I enjoyed this book on that exact topic: http://www.amazon.com/Stumbling-Happiness-Daniel-Gilbert/dp/...
Americans are materially wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. I would suspect (without having any sort of citation to support it) that, when compared to Americans, most of the people who have ever lived in any time and in any country have known nowhere near the standard of living represented by a $60K annual income in the U.S. today. If that assumption is true, and if the premise of this piece is also c…
Daniel Kahneman mentions the 60k stat after his discussion and says "for Americans".
That should lead you to the conclusion that the number would likely be different if you did the gallup survey in a different country.
Americans are materially wealthy relative to most of the rest of the world. I would suspect (without having any sort of citation to support it) that, when compared to Americans, most of the people who have ever lived in any time and in any country have known nowhere near the standard of living represented by a $60K annual income in the U.S. today. If that assumption is true, and if the premise of this piece is also c…
Though in this case, I think you may be neglecting one thing. As the article mentions towards the end, humans are creatures of comparison. Someone earning around 60K in America can see that they are better off materially than most of the people in their city and if they pay any attention at all to the world they will know they are vastly better off than the majority of the world. At that point they are hardly wealthy, but better off than most.