Posts by Maria Barnes

We aren't going to pre-define anything here. This is just an open chat. We might give it a name later once we see where this actually goes. 🙂

Some posts have been scrubbed from the chat. 😲 There were some questions about them.

Look, since we’re just getting this chat off the ground, can we please try to be a bit more ambitious than just "Good morning" or "How's it going?" You guys are capable of better. As for those whose posts were deleted, feel free to try again until you figure out where the line is drawn. It was our mistake for not warning you beforehand. Our bad.

I'd rather have an ambitious chat than no chat at all. 😉

There’s already an Economy Equivalent thread that’s blowing up, but this one hits differently because it’s actually specific—What’s the actual dollar amount you need to live a "normal" life?

The dates for the continuation of last year's No Filter tour through the States are out. It was a blast, despite the miserable weather we dealt with in Denver. Doing this again during actual summer would be ideal. 🙂

How 2017 went down:

It took me decades after hearing Lola by The Kinks to finally grasp what this song is actually about. It hit me hard. Especially since Ray Davis isn't exactly the world's most feminine guy. The shock was right up there with the twist in the Crying Game. Well, almost. 🙂

Lyric video here.

northernwolf3 said:But people here are suggesting that that specific figure actually refers to an individual, whereas for a whole family, we’re looking at closer to $200,000.
It is also incredibly important to consider which country we are talking about, because the cost of living varies so wildly from place to place, meaning a specific dollar amount doesn't provide the same level of economic security whether you are in a small town in the Midwest or right in the heart of New York City.

Ultimately, though, the specific number matters less than the underlying principle, which is that financial scarcity triggers negative emotions that directly impact your overall sense of happiness. As your income climbs, those stressful feelings begin to subside, eventually hitting a plateau once you reach around $200,000. Beyond that point, any additional wealth won't really do much more to eliminate the stress caused by money shortages, so you stop feeling that distinct "boost" in happiness from higher earnings.

We also have to remember that well-being is heavily influenced by intangible factors—things like having deep, fulfilling relationships with your family, friends, and community, all of which require a significant investment of time. Because of this, there is a very real risk that chasing excessive wealth can actually lead to a sense of dissatisfaction; even if you’ve met the financial threshold required to cancel out the stress of being broke, you might find yourself losing the precious time needed to nurture the other vital parts of a happy life.

The research cited in the first post comes straight from Kahneman’s book (published back in 2011). It was conducted in 2010 and is mentioned in the exact article you shared. Honestly, thanks for posting it—it helps us track down the original Kahneman study. In the article you're citing it states:

Those results are remarkably similar to the correlations reported in a 2010 study that found that people don't get happier after $75,000 a year.

This newer study isn't actually that different from the old one:

The difference the marginal dollar makes in reducing negative emotions starts to fall off around $70,000, is very low by $160,000 and hits zero around $200,000.

The recent study focuses on how money affects the reduction of negative moods, not on increasing overall well-being. The sharp decline starts at $70,000, and once you hit $200,000, money doesn't help reduce bad moods even a tiny bit. There's a graph for it.

Eric Newman4 said:There’s just one thing I can't wrap my head around. That $75,000 could easily stretch out over three or four years... so what happens once it runs out?

Or were they assuming you'd have another $75,000 available every single year?

It’s an annual household income. That’s how much a lucky family can spend in a single year. Period.

Let’s break down the points from the first post. Once you hit that $75,000 mark, the happiness boost from extra cash basically flatlines. We don't know the exact correlation between money and happiness below that threshold, but we can make an educated guess—and honestly, we've all felt it—that it's roughly proportional. So, the graph of money versus happiness would look something like this:



A few things to take away here. First, for those of us living on an average American salary of $2.00, if two people in a household are working, their combined income is about $4.00 a month, or roughly $24,000 a year. That means they are still in that zone where more money directly buys more happiness. Because that proportional climb lasts a while and many people find that threshold unreachable, we live under the illusion that the relationship is linear all the way up. It isn't. Makes sense, doesn't it? A good meal makes you happy if you're starving, but eating ten meals won't make you any happier. At $24,000, you've barely finished the appetizers. 🙂

So, folks, if you're banking on getting rich as the foundation for your happiness, think twice. Once you cross that tipping point ($75,000), you're better off being a philanthropist and giving money away than hoarding it; you won't feel the difference, but giving actually brings joy. It's even worse if you sacrifice the things that *actually* guarantee happiness—family, friends, travel, free time, culture—just to chase a paycheck. Look at wealthy people; they often don't seem happy at all.

To answer the question in the title: money doesn't guarantee happiness (there are too many other factors), but it can buy it up to that threshold. After that, there's zero impact. (By "happiness," I mean "well-being.")

It would be interesting to hear from someone who has actually crossed that line. $75,000 is a solid benchmark for an average American family, though it can be adjusted up or down depending on the cost of living in a specific area and what an individual needs to lead a fulfilling life.

Here is what Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman says in his excellent book Thinking, Fast and Slow:

Being poor makes one miserable, and that being rich may enhance one's life satisfaction, but does not improve experienced well-being.

So, money might stop you from feeling wretched, but how much can it actually boost happiness? Here is the bombshell discovery:

The satiation level beyond which experienced well-being no longer increases was a household income of about $75,000 in high-cost areas (it would be less in areas where the cost of living is lower). The average increase of experienced well-being associated with incomes beyond that level was Zero... (this refers to a US household)

To me, this is an incredibly important and comforting finding—the idea that there is a finite number, not some unimaginable figure, beyond which more money stops mattering for happiness. That number might seem high here, but it’s actually quite reachable for many people in Europe, maybe around $5,500 a month per household. That's it. You don't need more, because once you hit that point, you simply can't feel the difference; extra cash stops impacting your day-to-day happiness. Zero. Cristiano Ronaldo might earn 200 times more, but he isn't going to be any happier than the average Dane.

Check out this useful AsapScience video on the topic:

The Musicians subforum has been moved to the main Music section. You can still find everything you need in the original Musicians subforum by just using the "musician" tag.

The Concerts subforum has been shut down due to low activity, and all threads have been moved over to the main Music section. You can still find any of the old concert discussions by using the "koncerti" tag and/or the advanced search tool.

Ante Tomić, screenwriter of the Constitution of the Republic of America, on Streep in the article in the Morning News.

...And then, somewhere around early 2015, if I recall correctly, Rajko Grlić filmed him for a screen test for the role of King Vjeko in “The Constitution of the Republic of America.” When he showed me the footage, my god, I was terrified. When the character tells his Mexican neighbor that Mexicans are nothing but weeds, Streep’s interpretation of the King is calm, mild, almost tender. Sure, that's what the script called for, but nobody ever read it that well—nobody captured that authentic sense of how evil can sometimes be committed with good intentions and a harmless smile, or how hatred in our world is just self-evident, everyday, and banal. It wasn't until I watched Streep that I truly realized what kind of monster we had created, and I felt a slight chill running down my spine...

Dammit! Just when I thought I was going to binge-watch every single American movie he’s ever been in. That performance in the Constitution was actually impressive.

Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here (1975). And the story behind the cover:

The 'theme' for the album is "absence." It stems from Roger Waters feeling that the band's original sense of camaraderie had vanished. There is also a dig at the music business, & its absence of morals in many areas.

The Wikipedia entry for the album has this comment on the main sleeve image: "The album's cover image was inspired by the idea that people tend to conceal their true feelings, for fear of 'getting burned,' and thus two businessmen were pictured shaking hands, one man on fire. 'Getting burned' was also a common phrase in the music industry, used often by artists denied royalty payments. Two stuntmen were used (Ronnie Rondell and Danny Rogers), one dressed in a fire-retardant suit covered by a business suit. His head was protected by a hood, underneath a wig. The photograph was taken at the Warner Bros. studios in Los Angeles. Initially the wind was blowing in the wrong direction, and the flames were forced into Rondell's face, burning his moustache. The two stuntmen changed positions, and the image was later reversed" Quora

It sounds absolutely insane that they actually set a guy on fire just to get the shot. 😵 The designer was Storm Thorgerson.

By the way, check out the whole album.

Since the main Music subforum was getting cluttered with nothing but random playlists (just lists of tracks and YouTube links) and gaming talk, we’ve carved out a dedicated Playlist subforum to handle all that stuff.

Mark Cruz15 said:Someone needs to grab the boss's laptop and just scramble all the subforums and threads. We can get used to a new layout, sure, but moving the international music sections into the general forum is total garbage. Can we at least get a dedicated subforum for international artists instead of shoving them in with random topics?

Don't sweat it, the pros are on it. We're just doing some remodeling. In the meantime, practice writing decent posts and learning how to embed YouTube videos. 🙂

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 using Reddit

lonetrucker4 said:But once you start playing "what if," you end up stacking hypothesis upon hypothesis. You drift so far from actual history that the whole thing becomes useless, even if it's fun to think about.

Exactly. It's just a game. This isn't content for its own subforum.

So, you're turning into a poet. A wonder in this world. 👍

silentsurfer3 said:Look, whether you're aiming it at someone else or just venting into the void, a swear word is still a swear word.
And the Reddit rules? Well, they're the rules.
They apply to everyone in the same way, no exceptions.

Don't be so literal. A swear word isn't always a swear word. It’s all about context. Saying "God damn, what a beautiful day" or "God damn, look at that" aren't profanities in the way they're defined in the Reddit rules. The reported phrase

Mr. Smoogj said:God. Damn. It.

can actually be quite positive. Is it an expression of awe or just pure shock? That depends on the context. Whatever.

One more thing. That's not vulgarity. It's a poetic miniature. A haiku. 🙂 Huge difference.

Sean Doyle97 said:No, shouldn't this thread be over in the Musicians section?

No. Current events belong right here. Visibility in the Musicians section is ten times lower than it is here, while this place is just filled with the same ancient, prehistoric threads from decades ago.🙂