$83,000 Is The New $75,000 Happiness Benchmark For Annual Income

[xchrom]

http://www.businessinsider.com/happiness-benchmark-for-annual-income-2014-7



A current APViewpoint discussion on "The Sad State of Happiness" included an indirect reference to a popular 2010 academic study by psychologist Daniel Kahneman and economist Angus Deaton. Their topic was the correlation between annual household income and day-to-day contentment. They analyzed more than 450,000 total responses to a Gallup weekly survey of households across the 50 states and DC. The survey was conducted in 2009.

A report in the WSJ summarized their findings:

"It turns out there is a specific dollar number, or income plateau, after which more money has no measurable effect on day-to-day contentment.
The magic income: $75,000 a year. As people earn more money, their day-to-day happiness rises. Until you hit $75,000. After that, it is just more stuff, with no gain in happiness."

Kahneman and Deaton distinguish between two concepts of happiness.

Emotional Well-Being: the day-to-day experiences that make life pleasant or unpleasant

Evaluation of Life: one's overall life satisfaction

The $75K number is the benchmark for the first of the two. As Deaton explained, "Giving people more income beyond $75K is not going to do much for their daily mood ... but it is going to make them feel they have a better life."



Read more: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Happiness-Benchmark.php#ixzz37Wf6xp3r

[delrem]

1. That isn't good enough for me. nt

[xchrom]

2. yes, i gather. good luck. nt

[delrem]

3. likewise. aren't we all the blessed?

[xchrom]

4. i have no idea what that means. nt

[Skittles]

5. then delrem thinks you're fucking crazy!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5241685

[xchrom]

7. OMG

[steve2470]

6. as usual, $75K only goes so far in Manhattan, much further in Oklahoma

$162,500 per the article in Manhattan

$65,850 per the article for Mississippi, $67,800 for OK.

[PowerToThePeople]

8. that is actually right around

GDP/(working age population) is right around $85k/year currently.

Yea, Socialism would suck bad....

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

[cali]

9. If you allow money to dictate happiness

Yes, we need shelter, decent food, etc, but beyond that? As long as I don't have to worry about paying for the necessities, my happiness is largely dependent on things other than money: My health, friendship, living in a place I like, the well being of my son, the ability to pursue my interests- none of which are expensive.

[hobbit709]

10. That leaves me $70,000 short and people wonder why I'm grumpy.

[progressoid]

13. Ditto. n/t

[n2doc]

11. I'll bet that number goes way down with Universal health care

And some sort of minimum income. Many people would be fine with less, so long as they don't have to worry about dying in the gutter, broke and starving. But hey, that's the flip side of the American Dream.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. 83,000 in nyc does not buy happiness. nt

[closeupready]

16. I know you got that right, hon.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. i feel like they should do seperate analyses for large cities

[closeupready]

18. Yes, it would need to be roughly double due to

higher demand for scarcer resources, than - for example - Omaha or Provo.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. i think 120,000 is probably a reasonable amount needed to be happy in nyc

[closeupready]

20. Yes, though keep in mind, at that income, you're still renting.

While with 83k income in Omaha, you likely buy, even if it's something modest.

But I agree that for purposes of what you'd need just to simply exist in a state of mind in which you can insulate yourself from the aggravations of living around so many gross people (lol), 120,000 would probably be the floor level.

[Avalux]

15. So according to this report, 83k is the magic number needed to ensure all basic needs are met.

If they are, and a person isn't worried about making it from one paycheck to the next, their attention can be directed towards more pleasurable things.

It's important because the people at the top want the majority of us to be poor so all of our time is spent surviving.

[xchrom]

21. you've done the best job of boiling this down in this thread. nt

[Trillo]

22. So minimum wage doesn't quite cut it, eh?

It seems a wage in the neighborhood of $40 per hour is needed, which is even far above any living wages I've read bandied about ($15 is a common low-ball).

I guess that in the "pursuit of happiness" game, if there aren't winners (happy) and losers (unhappy), then life just ain't as fine for the winners. Everyone can't be a winner. /srcsm