I've seen it suggested elsewhere that there is no saturation point, it's just that the relationship is logarithmic, and truncated logarithmic datasets look asymptotic.
...which by the way I find extremely plausible, just judging by the fact that most of our senses (hearing volume & frequency, light intensity, etc.) are perceived in a logarithmic way.
That being said, my personal opinion is that money does not make people happy, but it definitely prevents a lot of causes of unhappiness.
> That being said, my personal opinion is that money does not make people happy, but it definitely prevents a lot of causes of unhappiness.
I generally have found this to be a tautology. Being less unhappy means being more happy. In fact, I've found that being content with things has improved my happiness significantly.
It's not just about maximizing every positive experience, but minifying the negatives as well.
> I've seen it suggested elsewhere that there is no saturation point, it's just that the relationship is logarithmic, and truncated logarithmic datasets look asymptotic.
If it's truly a logarithmic relationship (rather than asymptotic), this would imply that billionaires are an order of magnitude happier than everyone else.
The base of the logarithm does matter, but assuming base 10, a billionaire with an income of say $100M dollars would be 4 times happier than someone with $10k per year income which is pretty close to the floor in the US.
https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/05/daily-...
...which by the way I find extremely plausible, just judging by the fact that most of our senses (hearing volume & frequency, light intensity, etc.) are perceived in a logarithmic way.
That being said, my personal opinion is that money does not make people happy, but it definitely prevents a lot of causes of unhappiness.