Yeah - this is a common point, and I'm not quite sure what the answer is. Paper just uses the 75k figure 'in the contemporary United States', which I agree is not really sufficient given the huge regional discrepancies in income. Still, I think studies that are reductive in one way can still be useful for a general sense of the effect.
Another question (probably easily answered by reading the original study, which I'm too lazy to do): Are we talking individual or household income?
Most aspects of cost-of-living (rent, utilities, vehicle costs, etc.) seem like they'd scale sub-linearly with household size, so the difference between one person on $75k and two people on $75k each is bigger than it seems. (And the difference between one person on $75k and two people on $37.5k each is smaller than it seems.)
Yeah, I remember reading somewhere that it scales at a factor of sqrt(n) for n people under the same income. Not quite a sufficient reason to get hitched, but definitely an argument in favor of it lol.
There should be more than one study of such an important subject.
I also wonder about the effects of relative income. The classic "we didn't know we were poor" vs. "when you make your first million, you find out how many people have two million".
The other possible confounder on the "life satisfaction" scale is that people who are competent, effective and valued at their job are probably pretty happy about that, and they are probably also paid better than people who are not these things
What definition of "correlation" are you using here? Because the standard definition can only be between -1 and 1 but you report values outside of that range
It’s income-normalised correlation, it says it in the post. So a correlation of -7 is a negative correlation seven times as big as the correlation with income.
This is important, in that education (as a proxy for Intelligence) skews people towards the need for higher income to be satisfied, but have no influence on positive affect.
What's the $75k look as purchasing power parity? 75k is probably great income in Nowhere, Oklahoma, but not so good in NYC
Yeah - this is a common point, and I'm not quite sure what the answer is. Paper just uses the 75k figure 'in the contemporary United States', which I agree is not really sufficient given the huge regional discrepancies in income. Still, I think studies that are reductive in one way can still be useful for a general sense of the effect.
Another question (probably easily answered by reading the original study, which I'm too lazy to do): Are we talking individual or household income?
Most aspects of cost-of-living (rent, utilities, vehicle costs, etc.) seem like they'd scale sub-linearly with household size, so the difference between one person on $75k and two people on $75k each is bigger than it seems. (And the difference between one person on $75k and two people on $37.5k each is smaller than it seems.)
Yeah, I remember reading somewhere that it scales at a factor of sqrt(n) for n people under the same income. Not quite a sufficient reason to get hitched, but definitely an argument in favor of it lol.
Things to consider:
- Worth (in Gold/Silver oz)
- Tax rate average (should be approx. 30% in US)
- Purchasing Power (based on average US cost of goods)
- Comparison with other nations
Is this pre-tax or post-tax, just wondering
There should be more than one study of such an important subject.
I also wonder about the effects of relative income. The classic "we didn't know we were poor" vs. "when you make your first million, you find out how many people have two million".
I suspect it is not trivial. People pay a lot to conspicuously consume indicating that they care about other's perception of their level of wealth.
The other possible confounder on the "life satisfaction" scale is that people who are competent, effective and valued at their job are probably pretty happy about that, and they are probably also paid better than people who are not these things
What definition of "correlation" are you using here? Because the standard definition can only be between -1 and 1 but you report values outside of that range
Yeah, Sam you will need to update that.
It’s income-normalised correlation, it says it in the post. So a correlation of -7 is a negative correlation seven times as big as the correlation with income.
recently saw the 2010 one on twitter, but i had to point people to this one from 2017:
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Happiness%2C-income-satiation-and-turning-points-the-Jebb-Tay/9499be11a40f0fad25efe94f844cdf9b75bcb238
This is important, in that education (as a proxy for Intelligence) skews people towards the need for higher income to be satisfied, but have no influence on positive affect.