Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 9080705" data-attributes="member: 23751">So you arguments are...1) a 33k sample size which is several times larger than the standard accepted sample size for polls is somehow not enough. &quot;only sampled 33k...&quot;2) The people in the USA are unique in the world to being happier when they make money. &quot;That study is unique to employed people in the USA.&quot;3) They found that more people were happier when they make more money = people aren't happier when they make more money. &quot;in a follow on study they found the number rose.&quot;4) They asked people if they were happier which is not an objective measure of happiness, &quot;key to this is they asked people how satisfied they were...&quot;Um.First, a 33k sample is waaaaaaaay more than enough to establish what a population feels about something.&nbsp; Second, the US is not unique in wanting to be happy and being happier when they have luxuries like, &quot;More food than is needed to keep from starving to death, hot water, electricity, cable, etc.&quot;&nbsp; Third, people being happier when they make more money = people being happier when they make more money.&nbsp; That's why the number rose.Fourth, there is no objective measure of happiness, because happiness is................................subjective.&nbsp; What is objective is that people reported being significantly happier with more money and luxuries up to 200k-500k depending on the study.&nbsp; Certainly waaaaaaaaaay above, &quot;basic water and electricity.&quot;Imagine that!&nbsp; Poor people got a greater increase in happiness due to having more money and luxuries than the middle class and wealthy.&nbsp; It's almost as if money does indeed buy happiness <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />No.&nbsp; Even in the USA you generally stop &quot;struggling&quot; when you hit 75k(before really) income, so the 200k-500k level means that more luxuries on top of basic needs = happiness.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Maxperson, post: 9080705, member: 23751"] So you arguments are... 1) a 33k sample size which is several times larger than the standard accepted sample size for polls is somehow not enough. "only sampled 33k..." 2) The people in the USA are unique in the world to being happier when they make money. "That study is unique to employed people in the USA." 3) They found that more people were happier when they make more money = people aren't happier when they make more money. "in a follow on study they found the number rose." 4) They asked people if they were happier which is not an objective measure of happiness, "key to this is they asked people how satisfied they were..." Um. First, a 33k sample is waaaaaaaay more than enough to establish what a population feels about something. Second, the US is not unique in wanting to be happy and being happier when they have luxuries like, "More food than is needed to keep from starving to death, hot water, electricity, cable, etc." Third, people being happier when they make more money = people being happier when they make more money. That's why the number rose. Fourth, there is no objective measure of happiness, because happiness is................................subjective. What is objective is that people reported being significantly happier with more money and luxuries up to 200k-500k depending on the study. Certainly waaaaaaaaaay above, "basic water and electricity." Imagine that! Poor people got a greater increase in happiness due to having more money and luxuries than the middle class and wealthy. It's almost as if money does indeed buy happiness ;) No. Even in the USA you generally stop "struggling" when you hit 75k(before really) income, so the 200k-500k level means that more luxuries on top of basic needs = happiness. [/QUOTE]

Verification