[danenania]

"Get therapy (you can actually afford it now), trade your money for more free time, seek meaning, be more generous and altruistic - acquire more friends, help others."

I don't dispute that people who do these things would tend to be happier on average, and I agree they are all good ideas, but we can also conclusively say they aren't silver bullets, since there are many people who do all those things but still end up finding their lives so intolerable that they kill themselves.

"try to imagine for a split second how miserable life is if you can't afford hobbies, healthcare, stable housing, or a companion pet"

I'd put healthcare and stable housing in the basic needs bucket, though of course they both exist on a spectrum.

And again, that's my point. There are countless people who have enough money that they have no financial worries whatsoever and yet are still miserable, while there are others with a modest income who feel content. If you are unhappy and feel that making more money will fix it, and you're not struggling with basic needs, this should indicate that at the very least, there's no guarantee it will be a solution to your unhappiness.

[antisthenes]

I understand your point, and like I already said, it's a lazy argument that boils down to "rich people sometimes have it hard too".

Sure, yes, that happens. But on average they have the resources to deal with it, so bringing it up every time is tired, lazy and disrespectful to those who are struggling and have no safety network.

You're free to think otherwise.

[danenania]

It obviously doesn't boil down to that. It doesn't seem to me that you actually read and understood what I wrote (either that or you're deliberately mischaracterizing for whatever reason), so it's a bit ironic for you to talk about lazy arguments.

[vertis]

It does read like that unfortunately. I understand that you're trying to say that money doesn't give happiness in a more verbose way. It's just not true though (it's a popular adage, and has even had some scientific study).

> Past research has found that experienced well-being does not increase above incomes of $75,000/y. This finding has been the focus of substantial attention from researchers and the general public, yet is based on a dataset with a measure of experienced well-being that may or may not be indicative of actual emotional experience (retrospective, dichotomous reports). Here, over one million real-time reports of experienced well-being from a large US sample show evidence that experienced well-being rises linearly with log income, with an equally steep slope above $80,000 as below it. This suggests that higher incomes may still have potential to improve people’s day-to-day well-being, rather than having already reached a plateau for many people in wealthy countries[0].

You've referenced basic needs without defining what that means. The vast majority of people in the US are not in the HN bubble. They're in the barely making basic needs or just above that.

More money for people in stress (i.e. at the border) is going to bring relief and therefore less sadness[1].

[0]: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2016976118 [1]: https://newrepublic.com/article/120859/money-doesnt-buy-happ...

[danenania]

Money was one small part of my point. And you, like the other poster, are arguing against a strawman.

I already addressed the issue of basic needs. I also made no claim as to whether more money makes people happier on average. It very well might—as you point out, there are conflicting studies on this so I don’t know if there’s conclusive evidence either way.

My point was only that money (like any other advantage one can have in life) doesn’t make everyone happy, and so there is no guarantee it will make any particular person happy if they get it.

Neither you or the other poster have addressed this point whatsoever, rather arguing against something I didn’t even say.