The pay raise people say they need to be happy

[yamrzou]

https://archive.ph/xBGX4

[jwagenet]

> Dunn said that many people might be happier if they focus on the best ways to use the money they have, rather than on getting more of it.

So out of touch. Sure, the >$200k bracket saying they also need a 50% raise to be happier is a bit rich, but for a anyone else, especially <$100k, people don’t have time to make their money work better for them.

The whole complaint about wage stagnation is that people need to work multiple jobs, commute long hours, etc so they don’t have time to eat well, go to the doctor, spend time with kids, or whatever they need to be happier. Whoever says otherwise either doesn’t live in our society or is already over the wage hump of living comfortably.

[imzadi]

It'd be so nice if basic needs were just met as part of the societal contract. Then work is the thing we do to fund the extras. People who can't work for whatever reason don't have to fight to survive and people who want to work or have more ambition can actually do something with the money they make.

[lancesells]

Not to mention everything costs more when you have less. Bad credit score will have you paying more for your car or house than someone else. Working two jobs you're probably likely to eat worse and more convenient food which costs more.

[randomdata]

While wages did obviously start to increase when the economy shifted from selling things to selling time (after all, wages weren't a thing beforehand, so they had nowhere to go but up!) incomes have remained stagnant as far back as the records go. Now that most everyone sells time instead of things, wages and income are basically the same thing, meaning that wages can only increase further if incomes also increase, but that has never happened at least since we started keeping records.

So – Would people actually be happier if they made the same amount of money, but did so selling something other than time? Even if the amount of time required to produce that something was the same as the time input they are giving in exchange for wages?

[II2II]

The article even alludes to them asking the wrong question when they say that people who value time over money tend to be happier. Perhaps they should ask something to the effect of how much money they need to feel secure about their needs being met.

[yamrzou]

Here is a better figure highlighting the difference between the desired and the current salary: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/9aqrK/apple.png

[bena]

That is so weird.

I've essentially been adjusting my saving/investing to keep my take home at about the same amount since I've reached a certain threshold.

Now, I wouldn't say no to more, but I also don't feel I need more necessarily. Even now, I have about a year's worth of money tucked away "just in case".

And the major reason for the saving/investing is to be able to generate enough cash to cover bills so I'm not reliant on a job for anything.

[tr3ntg]

And where is this from?

[tr3ntg]

Wow. This is very interesting.

[kneel]

I will never forget starting off my career as a 'contract employee' with no benefits. Working long hours I developed quite a few health problems within the first year. It was nearly impossible to see a doctor and when I finally did I had to fight the insurance company for weeks to cover a visit.

I was making every single meal to save money, my supervisor used to sneak us food from the c-suite catered lunches after we were banned from going upstairs to scavenge their leftovers.

When my contract was up they offered me another contract, after a year I expected to be offered full-time employment with benefits. I asked around to see if this was normal and met someone who had been a contract employee for 5 years. I quit the next week.

I think California passed a law preventing contractor classification abuse shortly after this but it left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.

[randomdata]

> left a lasting impression on my view of corporate business culture.

No different than culture in general, is it? If you meet someone walking down the street, you're not likely to hound them to make sure everything is okay and if there is anything you can do to make their stroll better. You are bound to just naturally assume that because they are walking down the street that they are happy to be there and everything is good. You're apt to assume that unless they cry out for help, they don't need another thought.

But maybe they really do need help. You clearly did need the help, but as you kept showing up, there was no reason to think something was wrong in your case either.

[Centigonal]

I wish they had a version of the figure with a log scale, since it seems like people of all income brackets except the very lowest say a 30-50% raise will make them happy.

[k__]

People don't need a pay rise; they need a way to leave the treadmill.

[resource_waste]

I left the treadmill, it was so boring. I voluntarily went back on it, it is nice to know I can hop off.

But I can't hop off, its too boring. Seriously.

[diob]

I think in the middle, you reach a point where you think, "Wow, this is more than I ever imagined, this must be the most you can make."

As a kid raised in poverty, that's definitely what I thought.

But the higher you get, the greater your visibility of folks making even more money.

This is coming from someone who started at 60k, currently at >200k.

[deadbabe]

As you access higher incomes the possibilities of things you could buy expands, thus you want more and more money to afford them, thus requiring bigger pay raises.

[ericmcer]

Incrementally increasing expenses as your income raises seems dumb, for me there are only three financial levels:

1. Can't afford lifestyle.

2. Can afford lifestyle.

3. Can retire.

Raises and budgeting can take you from 1 -> 2 quickly, but going from 2 -> 3 would require such a humongous raise that even a 10% one would be pointless.

Definitely a privileged take, but it does kinda suck when you are in the "Well at this income level I can safely retire in ~15 years... see ya then". Do you just grind it out safely? Or do you take risks to see if you can jump to number 3 immediately?

[tracker1]

So much this... You hit closer to the 5% mark, and you still have to work and struggle. Having a job hunt take 7 months after surgery is pretty rough when you only had enough set aside for a couple months. You come out in debt up to your eyeballs and have to make as much as before or you're going to have to sell your home and start over at 0. Now looking at 5-10 years to get back to good.

Moving to a better neighborhood, getting a new car next year, or getting more repairs done on your home start taking a back seat. It's hard to even imagine making half as much and trying to hold anything together.

And you're seeing jobs that literally pay what you made 15 years ago for "expert" level experience.

I don't know what to think any more.

[Propelloni]

That's probably part of it. In my observation income changes its meaning starting at a certain Point. Most people I know making upwards of 200k EUR pa don't want or need more money to buy more stuff but to keep score with their peers and, in more extreme cases, to distort public opinion -- even if it is only about the local Kindergarten.

[kjkjadksj]

At a certain point though you start saving or investing hand over fist the excess you cannot manage to spend. A coca cola costs the same no matter how much you make after all.