Money Doesn't Make You Happier.....

Batchy

If you struggle to make ends meet, more money will make you happier. If you save a lot more money will make you more satisfied/ secure.

At the end of the day, as your money increases so too does your spending, not that it needs too, but it makes life potentially more stress free with nicer neighbours in a nicer neighbourhood, with a nice park nearby, etc, etc, etc. Not something you would feel if all that is possible is 18th floor of a highrise!!

MacMickster

The most creative and the most ambitious in our society generally find satisfaction, not just in achieving a goal or completing a project, but in the actual process of striving to achieve it. For many, this will produce increased wealth more as a by-product of their happiness rather than being the source of that happiness.

For others, happiness is a spiritual thing which can't be bought, although it can be inhibited by lack of money.

Sadly, for many happiness and satisfaction is all about the possession of things. Constantly trying to keep up with the Joneses they are unlikely to ever be truly happy as there will always be more Joneses up the ladder. They will, however, gain increasing satisfaction as they move further up the ladder.

There is another group, which may be peculiar to the UK, where people are only truly happy when they are able to tell others how unhappy they are about their health, the weather, the youth of today, the environment, the economy, television, next door's dog, the taste of their tap water etc. Indeed the British are one of the happiest nationalities in the world today.

chewmylegoff

Money is not the fundamental source of all happiness but it is one of the necessary prerequisites for me personally to be happy. The more of it I have the happier I am in general.

You don't see too many grumpy looking lottery winners either.

lostinrates

the_flying_pig wrote: »

the problem i had with stuff like this is that it's all based on 'subjective well-being', i.e. how happy people say that they are [presumably at the point in time at which they fill out the survey].

this obviously isn't anywhere near as accurate a measure as you'd get by [hypothetically] wiring up some kind of machine that constantly monitored the amount of, er, activity in a person's brain's left prefrontal cortex over the space of a typical ?

Very true. . Something I used to argue about a lot. There are (in animal science anyway) plenty of relatively non invasive ways to take physiological indicators. Some involve swaps and samples rather than a machine.

chucknorris

I think lack of money can be a source of unhappiness but after you have over a certain amount (different for eveyone) more money doesn't really make that much difference. At that point your happiness depends more on your lifestyle and of course your (and your loved ones) health.

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

I think lack of money can be a source of unhappiness but after you have over a certain amount (different for eveyone) more money doesn't really make that much difference. At that point your happiness depends more on your lifestyle and of course your (and your loved ones) health.

That's not what the research shows.

Clearly someone who is well is likely to be happier than an unwell person but the outcome is very clear: there is no measurable income point where you cease becoming happier by earning more. They go up to a top income level of $500,000+ pa although admittedly at that point the sample size of 8 is probably not statistically significant.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

That's not what the research shows.

Clearly someone who is well is likely to be happier than an unwell person but the outcome is very clear: there is no measurable income point where you cease becoming happier by earning more. They go up to a top income level of $500,000+ pa although admittedly at that point the sample size of 8 is probably not statistically significant.

I'm thinking more along the lines of net assets rather than income and I suppose it also depends what age you are too. I'm 55 and I just can't see how I can spend all that I have in the next 30 odd years. So having more isn't really going to benefit me.

I also don't really have expensive tastes, I would much rather be walking in the countryside on a sunny day with my wife and dog than on a world cruise. Although that does mean that I may end up buying a second property to spend the winter in Spain or the Algarve during the winter. I'm only really working because I like it (sort of, most of the time) AND also I think the teachers pension is great value, in 2 years when I have bought the maximum additional pension it is possible that I will retire.

Generali

chucknorris wrote: »

I'm thinking more along the lines of net assets rather than income and I suppose it also depends what age you are too. I'm 55 and I just can't see how I can spend all that I have in the next 30 odd years. So having more isn't really going to benefit me.

I also don't really have expensive tastes, I would much rather be walking in the countryside on a sunny day with my wife and dog than on a world cruise. Although that does mean that I may end up buying a second property to spend the winter in Spain or the Algarve during the winter. I'm only really working because I like it (sort of, most of the time) AND also I think the teachers pension is great value, in 2 years when I have bought the maximum additional pension it is possible that I will retire.

The research looked at income rather than assets but ultimately the point of assets is to provide an income flow, most of the time at anyway, so at the very least the 2 things are related.

To be fair, owning 2 houses and being able to spend the winter abroad makes you pretty rich. I can't spend the winter abroad and the Sydney winter is only about 6 weeks long!

ILW

Moby wrote: »

I would have thought that this is a huge question that brings in all sorts of religious and other philosophies into the debate. For instance three of the 'deadly' sins...............greed, lust envy. The relevance here being that people are not just motivated by a basic level of income but also by comparing themselves with their neighbours?

Status Envy by Al;ain de Button sums this one up.

Most people are not fussed if David Beckham buys a Porche, but will lose sleep if their neighbour who they went to school with has a car worth a bit more than theirs or a slightly bigger house.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

The research looked at income rather than assets but ultimately the point of assets is to provide an income flow, most of the time at anyway, so at the very least the 2 things are related.

To be fair, owning 2 houses and being able to spend the winter abroad makes you pretty rich. I can't spend the winter abroad and the Sydney winter is only about 6 weeks long!

If only our winter was only 6 weeks long!

I agree, I only mentioned assets because my (employment) income isn't particularly high (only 50k pro rata although the public sector pension raises that to be worth around 62k, but still less than I could earn if I was motivated by salary). I did say that the amount would be different for everyone. I am perfectly happy with what I/we have, but my wife would like more. But only for silly things (I'm not even sure if she is serious) like a private jet (which we would never be able to afford and I certainly don't crave one either) which she often cites when I try to explain to her that we have everything that we could need or want.

EDIT: What is the winter like over there? I imagine it isn't even what we (and you when back over here) would consider winter?