12 Comments

What's the $75k look as purchasing power parity? 75k is probably great income in Nowhere, Oklahoma, but not so good in NYC

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.)

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Is this pre-tax or post-tax, just wondering

Expand full comment

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".

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
December 23, 2021
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment