Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkulchenko | Hacker News Reader

People occasionally scoff at "money doesn't buy happiness", but it's an incredibly true statement.

There are homeless people who are objectively happier (and often, healthier) than some of the richest people in the world.

View on HN

I feel this needs a ridiculously large citation needed. It is trotted out a ton, but I can't help but hear the lyrics from Everclear's "I will buy you a new life"

    I hate those people who love to tell you
    Money is the root of all that kills
    They have never been poor
    They have never had the joy of a welfare christmas

After reading that article, you still want a citation showing that someone could be homeless and happier than those kids? ReallY? Maybe re-read the article?

I think it boils down to simple statistics. Those kids and those happy hobos may be in the minority.

The citation is against money not being able to buy happiness. Indeed, most of the research shows it does a pretty good job of working at that task. Now, the same research does show diminishing returns.

And, there is the whole statistical abnormality of this story. For every person that fits in this story, I suspect there are countless that could use an extra 10 dollars.

Am I saying that I envy these poor children? Of course not. I just view this as a story that you can not really use in any informative way. Name one decision that you will change based on this information?

After reading, I'd strongly consider not leaving an inheritance for my children. It seems to have wreaked generations of havoc on this family.

Your might find it worth reading back-to-back biographies of the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers. The Vanderbilts' wealth created generations of horror. The Rockefellers did much better: generally functional families and several descendants making solid contributions to the world. It's clear enough from the books where the difference comes from. If you raise your kids right, inheritance is not a bad thing.

http://www.amazon.com/Fortunes-Children-Fall-House-Vanderbil...

http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/1470...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill

Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on happiness", along with his works. Basically, since you don't have a comparison point between the stuff that you have, and they stuff that you don't have - it won't affect you.

In fact, there are a quick Ted talk about that, you can search for his name.

If you are truly homeless -- note, not currently living without a home, but truly homeless -- it is hard to really conceive of them not having a comparison point. Food, shelter, friends, transportation. All of these things are readily visible to them daily, yet denied them.

Also, don't get me wrong, this article does indicate some rather unfortunate situations. I personally do not envy them their lot. However, statistically non-existant situations are hard for me to really consider.

"When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of∼$75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being."

Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton "High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being" PNAS 2010 107: 16489-16493. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489

Presumably this number is an average across many different geographical areas. So I am curious about how this number was influenced by purchasing power and other factors.

That is, $75K gets you and your family a lot more space in a exurb or rural area compared to an expensive city like NY or SF. Does this matter? Or does a family spending most of their $75K income renting a 500 sf apartment in NY experience the same level of happiness as an equivalent family in a remote suburb with much more living space.

(Obviously, you could ask a similar question about other factors that change dramatically with geography - e.g. public/private school quality, cost of food, cost of leisure activities, access to culture, public services, etc)

> Or does a family spending most of their $75K income renting a 500 sf apartment in NY experience the same level of happiness as an equivalent family in a remote suburb with much more living space.

There has been some research done around how some people who live in cities (especially those who can be paid a relatively high livable wage) are those who want the local optimum of their available choices (maximizers). [1,2]

This tends to make them possibly less happy than those who have less choices. For instance, if you live in London or NYC, there are hundreds of options for nightlife and entertainment - and you might want to be somewhere else even if you are at club X (fear of missing out).

But the reality is:

"Happiness is complicated. Wherever you live." [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice:_Why_More...

[2] http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/02/14/the-real-value-of-d...

[3] http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2011/10/...

Good points.

Urban dwellers - especially high-income ones who chose to live there (as opposed to people who were simply born into working class NYC or SF and stayed) - often have idealistic, maximizer notions of "taking advantage of everything the city has to offer". Which is impossible and absurd in even a medium sized city, let alone NYC, London, SF.

Hard to see how their conclusion really makes sense. They basically play some semantic game to totally separate the ideas of satisfaction and happiness.

Also, this is in regards to income, not wealth. They are distinct things. Curious if there is a study regarding that. For myself, I don't think any additional money would make me happy. However, I am very happy I can provide healthy lives for my family.

The opposite arrow of causation is bigger.

Wealthy individuals make a choice over the long term to either draw income from their business to spend on luxury, or leave it in the business to grow. Depressed people choose the former, optimistic & energetic people choose the latter. Thus high 'emotional well-being' causes lower incomes.

I don't know if this was the parent author's intent, but one could very plausibly be homeless by choice, being materially poor and living a life with intentionally few obligations, as opposed to being someone forced onto the streets because of mental illness or financial trouble.

On the other hand, this story is in Rolling Stone and ostensibly "newsworthy" because money almost always provides insulation against this kind of deprivation.

Go to any large city in the US and you'll find this same story played out countless times with children living in equally terrible, deprived and dangerous situations. It won't be news because their parents are poor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com