Food for Thought:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S15/15/09S18/index.xml?section=topstories

Although, viewing the female percentages, I think I would still rather make the 100k/yr with only 19.6% leisure, because then I could still buy my toys (i.e. motorcycles, etc.) to enjoy during my leisure.

8/14/2007 6:24:05 PM

Quote :

""If people have high income, they think they should be satisfied and reflect that in their answers," Krueger said. "Income, however, matters very little for moment-to-moment experience.""

unless you are the mall, or if you are really hurting, the grocery store.

8/14/2007 6:29:08 PM

Quote :

"According to the government statistics, men making more than $100,000 per year spend 19.9 percent of their time on passive leisure, compared to 34.7 percent for men making less than $20,000. Women making more than $100,000 spend 19.6 percent of their time on passive leisure, compared with 33.5 percent of those making less than $20,000."

woah you don't mean you typically have to spend more time working to earn 100k than 20k - i just can't fathom that to be the truth - this is fucking amazing - they are doing great things over there at princeton

8/14/2007 6:33:07 PM

^ haha

BTW, big mistake here:

Quote :

"compared with 33.5 percent of those making less than $20,000"

Should say:

compared with 33.5 percent for women making less than $20,000

8/14/2007 6:35:50 PM

5 times the money, with roughly 40% less leisure?

Yeah, I don't think I give a fuck. I'll take it.

8/14/2007 6:46:37 PM

i wonder where the lines of "im unemployed and dicking around the house" and "im taking some time for myself" are drawn heh. under 20k eh.

8/14/2007 7:05:23 PM

Quote :

"I think I would still rather make the 100k/yr with only 19.6% leisure"

I remember you being an EE/CPE student.

I'd say you can make 100k/yr with about double or more that percentage of leisure.

8/14/2007 7:07:49 PM

Would have been more interesting if they had chose $60k vs. $120k or something. $20k is way too low.

8/14/2007 7:12:26 PM

how'd they calculate "leisure time"?? people making over 100k/yr can retire and not work the last 30yrs of their life vs a 20k person workin till they are 65 then dying from breathing in laser printer particles.

8/14/2007 7:13:31 PM

If I made a little more at my current job I'd be a little happier.

8/14/2007 7:16:37 PM

money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes a good down payment. i think having expendable cash makes leisure activities more accessible. just because you have time off from work doesn't mean you're spending it doing things you enjoy.

8/14/2007 7:24:08 PM

They don't factor in the 100% passive leisure I will have when I retire 20 years earlier.

8/14/2007 7:41:21 PM

id like to be somewhere in the middle of those. ill gladly make less than 100k if i can have a lot more leisure.

8/14/2007 7:45:58 PM

at the very least, money keeps you comfortable

8/14/2007 8:19:51 PM

Quote :

"i wonder where the lines of "im unemployed and dicking around the house" and "im taking some time for myself" are drawn heh. under 20k eh."

they also don't factor in women who possibly stay at home being in the under 20K range. they might have more time for leisure/running errands even if they have children.

8/14/2007 8:32:50 PM

Says women and poor people

8/14/2007 8:37:10 PM

hey im making about 10k MORE than what i was planning to ask for but i easily had more fun scraping by in college with a lot more free time than being able to buy whatever i want now. new cars and things like that arent exciting to me and i could do without unless my car was dead or something.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 8:43 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2007 8:42:46 PM

working world sucks balls... I make pretty good money... I hate not having more free time.

I get up early, I work, I come home, I'm tired, I don't feel like doing anything other than perhaps running... waste my time on video games or TV and then I go to bed...

now if I want to get something done in the middle of the day I have to seriously schedule it and take precious vacation time. Which vacation time is completely consumed by family events so you MIGHT get 1-2days that you can take, but those are spent on things I HAVE to do.

I think if my G/F wasn't still in school it would make things a lot easier... b/c I wouldn't have a constant reminder of what a loose schedule is like...

I even kinda like what I'm doing right now, but I'm giving up my salary to go back and get my masters degree. Obvious reason being that I want to achieve more and have more mobility than if I just have a bachelors, BUT one of my underlying reasons(like #4 on the list) is I value a loose schedule more than the money that I'm making right now.

It's nice to make money, you can buy a lot cooler things, you can retire earlier, you can take cool vacations... but day to day drag sucks HORRIBLY IMHO... I'm hoping it'll improve on the other side of gradschool when the majority of my reasons for going back will resolve themselves.

8/14/2007 10:29:14 PM

It takes money to enjoy time.

It takes time to make money.

Bummer.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 10:35 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2007 10:33:11 PM

Don't let the State Senate see this... next year they won't give us a raise and simply say that they are looking out for our best interest by giving us more leisure/happiness.

8/14/2007 10:34:18 PM

You can definitely make over 100k in engineering, and still have about 25% of your time spent on leisure.

8/15/2007 8:10:08 AM

Quote :

"5 times the money, with roughly 40% less leisure? Yeah, I don't think I give a fuck. I'll take it."

8/15/2007 8:14:15 AM

[quote]It takes money to enjoy time.
quote]

i disagree unless you are at the point where you cant afford gas/food/housing

8/15/2007 8:19:00 AM

high income + smart spending = no stress about credit cards, bills, house/car payments = less fighting with sig others about money = more time to focus on enjoying life

8/15/2007 8:20:39 AM

if I worked harder it would suck

8/15/2007 8:29:53 AM

... or you could find a job that you enjoy doing. That would make this whole statistical analysis of leisure time pointless, which it pretty much is in the first place.

8/15/2007 9:11:48 AM

doesnt always work 100% tho :/ the job i would want to spend the rest of my life doing is making music. unfortunately for the type of music i like to write even some of the bigger acts arent extremely well off financially so i chose a career that is at least somewhat interesting and will be able to provide for a family.

its not always as simple as doing what youd like :/

8/15/2007 9:21:25 AM

Heck if I could find a job paying over 100,000 a year I would work it for a couple of years hatting it save my money and quit. Then get a job making 30,000 or 40,000 a year and be happy.

8/15/2007 9:22:10 AM

Money won't buy you happiness, but poverty can't buy you sh*t - Anonymous

8/15/2007 9:46:02 AM

im all for people doing what they want to do. obviously some people will enjoy their lives better with more money and less time than less money and more time. each person is different and values different things because of this.

however quotes like ^ are stupid because the people who find truth in "money wont buy you happiness" and embrace it dont care if they "can't buy [themselves] sh*t" because their enjoyment comes in things that dont have monetary values to begin with.

and im not knocking anyone if they do find happiness in buying that new car or house. but just realize that its different for everyone

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 10:04 AM. Reason : ]

8/15/2007 10:02:45 AM

Passive leisure? Who the fuck wants to sit around watching TV?

I'd rather spend time on active leisure.

8/15/2007 10:05:11 AM

Quote :

"however quotes like ^ are stupid because the people who find truth in "money wont buy you happiness" and embrace it dont care if they "can't buy [themselves] sh*t" because their enjoyment comes in things that dont have monetary values to begin with. "

The quote is meant to be partially sarcastic. But, there is some truth behind the quote I made.

It's easy to say that your happiness doesn't come from monetary sources when there is an abundance of it at arms reach. When you come from a certain level of poverty you tend to understand the situation a little more.

Poverty in America is not equivalent to poverty in other parts of the world. That's where these fancy Princeton research methods don't apply. I know because my parents came from that side of the world. My mom tells stories of their poverty in Laos (S.E. Asia). And most of the stories are not told with a happy-go-lucky smile on her face. You can just sense the despair, bitterness, and fear in her voice. Rice, chili peppers, and boiled vegetables were the norm. Meat was a luxury. It got even worse during the Vietnam war. Running for your life, hiding in the jungles, and crossing dangerous rivers became a norm. Rice became a luxury at that point in time.

If they acquired any kind of money, it was a blessing. For them, money was treasured and protected. Actually, when they were able to acquire money, they would hide it. They wouldn't even spend it. Waiting for only the most important moments in life to spend it. Money was their only path to happiness.

There is something about poverty that people in those situations just loathed. And my parents loathed their poverty. Don't get me wrong though, they smiled and enjoyed life as it was back then. I'm not saying they were constantly depressed, but in the back of their minds, they constantly dreamed of "much better days."

I won't buy the statement that "poor people are just as happy" because I understand that side of life. My parents and many Hmong (who sided with the CIA) immigrated to the US after the Vietnam war for political asylum from the communist. I was born in California and grew up living in roach invested apartments, eating off welfare and the foodstamp system, and wearing hand-me down clothes and toys from our church. For Christmas my mother would buy us presents: a little wind-up toy car and an fresh California orange. We didn't have much growing up. I think the most expensive thing I owned as a kid was a Tiger hand-held Ninja Turtle game.

My father got his GED, and went to community college, paid by the welfare program. We eventually moved from California to NC after he finished his degree. Today, they own a house, 22 acres of land, and a contracted poultry farm. They aren't rich, but they aren't poor.

Whenever my mother reminisces back to her life in Laos, tears would roll down her cheeks. Life back then was hard. My father hesitates to speak of his past. He believes it's taboo. I consider myself lucky and well off. Born in America, lucky enough to get and education, and a great job. I honestly can't say one drop of sweat, blood, or tears were shed on my part for all that I have today. Well... maybe a few drops of sweat and tears when I failed that Calculus exam. Haha.

Poverty is REAL. And in the real world, I believe money can buy happiness. Poverty will continue to get you nothing. Be careful not to confuse the words "content" and "happy". Anyone can be content. You can be stuck in a war infested place like Iraq for a few years and eventually learn to be content with your situation. But, you sure as heck won't be happy with it.

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 11:41 AM. Reason : grammar/spell check completed]

8/15/2007 11:25:09 AM

^ Now THAT is one hell of a counter.

8/15/2007 12:10:39 PM

money can't buy happiness, but it can easily cure depression.

8/15/2007 12:27:38 PM

Money can buy you affection and sex.

8/15/2007 1:15:07 PM

thats a great story and im not knocking it but maybe i wouldnt be happy in THAT kind of EXTREME poverty but i would have no problem living a life where i made only enough money to eat, provide shelter and clothing for myself if i got to live with my best friends and make music. However I cant provide for a family like that which is why i took a real job.

ive also never had an abundance of money at arms reach growing up. i make more money now than both of my parents combined i think. so while we were not in poverty, to me personally i find more happiness in just hanging out with friends, hanging out outside, reading a book, playing guitar. all of which on basic levels can be done for free/very cheap which is what i was referring to.

i definitely know where you are coming from but i think your example as an argument against my particular statements is little extreme as the way i am using the word happiness is the same as other people in this thread, i wasnt trying to compare my situation to something like that. rather i was saying i can be *happy* not just content making bare minimum if i had to easy.

this thread was never about being poor, or in extreme poverty rather would you be happier making less money with more free time or the other way around.

when i talk to my dad about the best times of his life it was when me and my sister were young (ie my parents new parents). id also venture to say that this happened to be by far the poorest time of their life.

[Edited on August 15, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ]

8/15/2007 1:31:49 PM

Quote :

"Poverty is REAL. And in the real world, I believe money can buy happiness. Poverty will continue to get you nothing. Be careful not to confuse the words "content" and "happy". Anyone can be content. You can be stuck in a war infested place like Iraq for a few years and eventually learn to be content with your situation. But, you sure as heck won't be happy with it. "

I have to completely disagree.

Both of my parents grew up FAR below the poverty line. They both had extremely happy and fulfilled childhoods and their hardships made them harder workers and higher achievers as adults.

I know my happiest times in life so far have been at my poorest, I've survived several years of only making 12-15K in a year and loved every second of it.

8/15/2007 1:35:00 PM

Asians tend to be very materialistic.

Nice things do make them happy.

8/15/2007 1:38:45 PM

I am just curious...you think Asians are more materialistic than Americans?

8/15/2007 1:39:28 PM

No idea.

I'm not talking a bout Americans, though.

8/15/2007 2:02:21 PM

I guess everyone has their own definition of "poor" and "happy"... so this discussion will end up being moot. Again, I'm not arguing that you can't be happy with very little. I'm just making a statement for the poor. The day that you can't provide the basic necessities of life is the day that life becomes "poor", and the person becomes void of this "happiness". It's just that we American's (whether black, white, or yellow in skin) have defined our "basic necessities" as a car, a house, a guitar, and a 12-15k+ job.

Challenge: Go ask the homeless guy on Hillsborough St., "Are you happy with your life?" Even if he lies to you, you still know that in reality, he goes to bed really lonely, hungry, and depressed.

Quote :

"I am just curious...you think Asians are more materialistic than Americans?"

In the spirit of personal definitions - I'm asian and I'm American. So, I guess I'm extra materialistic... hahaha (I'm serious, I do wish my job would pay more. I'm living from check to check)

8/15/2007 2:09:13 PM

Until you are walking down the road and have to consider buying the dead dog or cat a guy is offering so your wife and kids can eat... you have it good. In this country there is always a safety net. Hell, go read joe_schmoe talk about the vagabond lifestye and you'll see that you can live fairly deccentkly without any job or home to speak of. There are systems in place to support even the lowest of the low in this country, beit social services, churches/missions, community shelters, etc.

8/15/2007 2:11:38 PM

From the article, it sounds like money can buy happiness. It's just that the price tag is higher than the researchers' assumptions.

Quote :

"In actuality, respondents who earned less than $20,000 a year reported spending only 12 percent more of their time in a bad mood than those who earned more than $100,000. So the effect of income on mood was vastly exaggerated."

8/15/2007 2:40:17 PM

Quote :

"Go ask the homeless guy"

If that's how you prove to yourself that money means happiness, then your critical thinking skills are horribly underdeveloped.

8/15/2007 2:59:39 PM

Quote :

"Hell, go read joe_schmoe talk about the vagabond lifestye"

joe_schmoe was/is a vagabond?

8/15/2007 3:07:04 PM

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=472831

8/15/2007 3:42:02 PM

Quote :

"Money can notbuy you esgarges affection and sex."

8/16/2007 12:09:31 AM

8/16/2007 12:52:29 AM

The above poster about how we define poverty is pretty much dead-on I think in this.

There's a real difference between 20K and starving in another country.
Hell, there's a decent difference between 20k and say 5k or next to nothing even in America.

While The article is trying to say more money doesnt necissarily equal more happiness and that's kind of dead on, it's only true after a point. Go ask someone who earns 20K about their life and go ask the people who live on nearly nothing in this country.

I can't say I've been the latter, but I've known plenty pretty well(long story as to how but just suffice to say I did as a kid). The money between a new or old car is not the same as the money between eating one meal a day or two. and I'm not even *touching* the above post's real point about other countries, compared to that our dirt poor are way better off.

Honestly? Even given my family's variance in income over the years which was only drastic from a middle-class american viewpoint, i can tell you life was better when mom and dad didn't fight every night over bills (and we're not talking huge credit card debt or cable tv, they never had it and luxuries are easy to say toss out), than it was when they did.


That and were all these women from the same place? 100K in san Jose is not 100k in Raleigh NC. Big thing there (I may have missed it in the article). That and I wonder how it would compare if you changed 100k to something truly rich- maybe like 400k a year or better. That I wont speculate on but it'd be interesting to find out.

8/16/2007 1:57:06 AM

Didn't read any of this, but I dare you to show me someone without ANY income that is happy.

8/16/2007 2:01:56 AM