|
|
|
|
|
|
by vertis
1378 days ago
|
|
|
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... |
|
|
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.