How Much Money Do You Have To Invest To Make 60000 A Year

Last updated: March 2016.

Total reading time: xv minutes.

Introduction

It's a cliche that "you tin can't buy happiness", but at the same fourth dimension, financial security is among most people'southward top career priorities.¹ Moreover, when people are asked what would most better the quality of their lives, the most mutual answer is more than money.ⁱⁱ What's going on here? Who is right?

A lot of the research on this question is of remarkably depression quality. Just in that location have been some recent major studies in economics that allow u.s. to make progress. In particular, we now finally accept survey data from hundreds of thousands of people all around the world. We've sifted through the best studies bachelor to effigy out what's really going on. The truth seems to lie in the middle: money does make you happy, but only a little. And this has many of import implications about merchandise-offs you face up in your life and career.

Summary of master points

• Recent surveys of hundreds of thousands of people, in over 150 countries, show that richer people report existence more satisfied with their lives overall, but that the richer yous become, the more money you need to increase your satisfaction further. This is because people spend money on the most important things showtime. Someone earning $100,000 per twelvemonth is only a trivial more than satisfied than someone earning $fifty,000. The all-time available study constitute that each doubling of your income correlated with a life satisfaction 0.five points higher on a scale of 1 to x.
• If you wait at how 'happy' people say they are right now, the relationship is weaker. One large study found people in countries with boilerplate incomes of $32,000 were only ten% happier with their lives than those in countries with average incomes of just $2,000; another within the US could notice no issue above a $40,000 income for a unmarried person.
• Moreover, some and maybe even about of this relationship is not causal. For example, healthier people will be both happier and capable of earning more. This means the effect of gaining extra money on your happiness is weaker than the above correlations suggest. Unfortunately, how much of the above relationships are acquired past money making people happier is still not known with confidence.
• Once you lot get to an private income of around $40,000, other factors, such as health, relationships and a sense of purpose, seem far more important than income. And so our recommendation is not to focus on earning more than this (insofar as you lot want to get happy, anyway).
• Yet, y'all may gain from earning more than than that if: yous have dependents, you care nigh money more than other people, or you live in an area with an unusually high cost of living.
• Giving money to someone living on $one,000 per year in the developing world volition do far more to meliorate their lives than giving the same amount to someone earning $25,000. The correlations to a higher place propose that it will be about 25 times more valuable. If yous want to assist people, this is a major reason to focus on international poverty rather than helping the relatively poor in richer countries.
• Giving some money to charity is unlikely to make you less happy, and may well make you happier.

Are richer people more than satisfied with their lives?

Thinking about it for a moment, you'd expect that the richer you are, the more than actress money you demand to further increase your happiness.

If you're earning $10,000 a year, and you get an extra $1,000, you're probably going to use it on something pretty important, similar making rent, which will brand a big difference to your happiness. Just if you're earning $100,000 per twelvemonth, yous'll inappreciably notice an actress $1,000. Maybe you'll just employ it to eat out a bit more. In other words, yous'd await the human relationship to exist diminishing. If yous draw out a graph of income against happiness, it'll look a flake like the graph below. This is what every economist, philosopher and psychologist who works on this topic expects to see.

At some point you end up spending money on stuff that doesn't brand much difference. For example:

(That's literally a roll of toilet newspaper made of gold that some people bought.)

The interesting question is how fast that happens. It may be that at middle-class incomes extra money still makes you significantly happier. Or maybe afterward that betoken extra income has no discernible impact at all.

One way to figure this out is to ask lots of people all effectually the world how much they earn and how satisfied they are with their lives. A typical question of this kind from the 'Globe Values Survey' is:

"All things considered, how satisfied are y'all with your life every bit a whole these days?: one (dissatisfied) – 10 (very satisfied)."

In the 70s and 80s, information technology was widely thought by psychologists that subsequently a certain indicate, at that place was no relationship betwixt income and life satisfaction, at to the lowest degree in wealthier countries.

Today, larger and more rigorous studies haven't borne out that event. As you lot become richer, y'all need a lot more money to make y'all more satisfied, merely there's no maximum level of income beyond which more seems to contribute nada.

The best study we could find is this i by famous economists Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. It draws on polling data from hundreds of thousands of people in 166 countries and found that people in richer countries reported being more satisfied with their lives than those in poorer countries, and that within a country, richer people also reported existence more than satisfied than those with lower incomes.

Image source.

Every bit yous can see, this survey establish a articulate straight-line human relationship betwixt income and happiness both within and between countries. The lines are straight rather than curved considering each increase on the bottom of the axis indicates a doubling of income.

Roughly, what this means is that if you double your income, you gain about half a point on a scale of 1 to 10 of life satisfaction. More precisely, this is a called a logarithmic relationship.

Notation that this is just an clan at this point – we discuss whether higher income is really causing people to become more satisfied below.

According to this survey data, a typical person with a household income of $2,000 rates their life satisfaction at around iv.2 out of 10. A typical person with a household income of $64,000 rates their life satisfaction at 7.2 out of 10.³

In the past, with only inconsistent polls bachelor in a small number of countries, this human relationship was much less clear, causing researchers to think there was no human relationship betwixt satisfaction and income. For more on the controversy about this today you can skip to Appendix I.

OK, just are richer people happier?

In that location's more than show for a maximum useful level of income if instead of asking people how their life is going overall, nosotros ask them how they feel correct now or felt yesterday.

For example, this study by Nobel prize winners Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton, relied on a telephone poll that asked hundreds of thousands of Americans how they felt in the following means:^four

• Positive affect – "were you lot happy yesterday?"
• Depression stress – "did you feel stressed yesterday?"
• Not blue – "did you experience sad yesterday?"
• Ladder – "how satisfied are yous with your life overall?"

Here'due south the effect:

Again, the scale at the bottom doubles with each increment.

You can come across that the "ladder" of life satisfaction is roughly straight all the mode up, simply equally nosotros found before.

However, the other iii lines beginning to flatten around $l,000, and are completely flat past $75,000. This means that extra income had no relationship with how happy, sorry and stressed people felt after this point.

Moreover, note that this is $50-75,000 of household income. That'southward equivalent to an private income of more like $26-xl,000 if you're single and not supporting kids.⁵

Non all studies notice that money stops having any impact. For instance, another enormous data analysis by Daniel Sacks, Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson found that happiness continued to better in countries with higher incomes – or at least there was no clear levelling off (meet figure beneath).^six

People in richer countries were more likely to recall feeling 'enjoyment' or beloved yesterday, and less likely to experience 'depression', or 'physical pain' despite being older (see the figure below).

People in richer countries were too a chip more likely to report being consistently treated with respect, having good tasting food, smiling or laughing a lot, and being free to choose how they spend their time (run across the effigy below).⁷

Merely but scanning the data yous tin encounter that these associations, while real, are quite weak considering the enormous range of income across the sample. Raising income 16-fold, from $2,000 to $32,000, moved reported happiness from 3.0/four to 3.3/4.⁸ A 64-fold increase in income, from $500 to $32,000, increased the probability of recalling feeling enjoyment or eating tasty food yesterday from effectually threescore% to 80%. A 64-fold increase in income only raised the likelihood of feeling 'love' yesterday from 63% to 73%. Much of our everyday human experiences are just not affected much past money. In other words:

In other studies nosotros looked at, overall life evaluation always showed the strongest relationship with income. If you enquire people how happy they feel today, or felt yesterday the relationship becomes more tenuous.^ix

What tin make sense of these results?

We estimate the central factor is the one we noted at the beginning – yous take the best opportunities to invest in your happiness start, and then as you go more than money, it becomes harder and harder to buy more than happiness. Somewhen the effect of additional income of happiness becomes negligible relative to other factors.

There could exist other reasons for a weak human relationship. For instance, ane fashion to earn more coin is to work longer hours in a job few other people want to do. Maybe the unhappiness acquired by these extra hours at work offsets whatever you gain from the extra income. It's a instance of mo' coin, mo' bug.

At that place's some show for this idea. This meta-analysis of over 100 studies establish only a very weak relationship betwixt pay and job satisfaction.¹⁰ Some kinds of jobs are low-paying precisely because they are satisfying. For example, if teaching weren't fulfilling, salaries would have to be higher to convince enough people to become teachers.

Some other gene is that nosotros readily arrange to having more coin. If you just accept champagne one time a year, it's a special occasion. Merely to quote more than Biggie, if "nosotros sip champagne when we thirst-ay", it'southward no large bargain. This is called the "hedonic treadmill". This is particularly true when nosotros spend coin on cloth goods, like fancy dress, which nosotros quickly go used to.¹¹ Moreover, we persistently underestimate how much we tin arrange, and then expect money to matter more than than it does.¹²

Still, at that place are some things we can't adjust to, which explains why in that location remains some relationship between income and happiness even among the rich. One example is that long commutes make people unhappy – and they never become used to them (see the effigy below).¹³ More money can also help you have more interesting, varied experiences and relationships, which are important too.^xi

Image source.

How come life satisfaction seems to increase more steeply with income than day-to-solar day happiness? Here'due south a likely caption. If someone asks you whether you are in concrete pain, information technology's like shooting fish in a barrel to check and requite a meaningful answer. But if someone asks you on the phone how satisfied you are with your life, all things considered, on a calibration of one to 10… it tin be hard to say. As you lot don't really know how satisfied you are on average, and you lot have to respond rapidly, people are inclined to substitute in its identify a related question that is easier to answer. A natural option is 'how much money am I making relative to others?', or 'how well is my career going?'. This widely observed miracle is chosen attribute commutation by psychologists.

In this respect experience sampling is superior considering it avoids a range of possible biases in people's perception and recollection of their life.¹⁴ Nonetheless, life satisfaction passes several tests for existence a skillful psychological measure (for example, it is stable over time and predicts future behaviour) and then shouldn't be disregarded.¹⁵

And so would making more money brand you happier?

So far we've just looked at the correlation between income and happiness, only correlation doesn't imply causation. As Stevenson and Wolfers remark:

Nosotros should note that we have focused on establishing the magnitude of the relationship between subjective well-beingness and income, rather than disentangling causality from correlation. The causal touch of income on private or national subjective well-being, and the mechanisms by which income raises subjective well-existence, remain open and important questions.

It could exist that in that location'southward another factor that causes both happiness and income. If this is true, boosting your income won't boost your happiness. For instance, maybe healthier people are both happier and able to earn more because they have more energy. Or mayhap happiness increases your income because happier people make better colleagues.

If these other connections exist, and they probably do, making an try to earn more money won't increase your happiness as much as you'd hope from the above correlations lone.

Then, if the question is "if I earn more money, will I exist happier?", and so the relationship is likely weaker than what we've seen above.

And the human relationship above was already pretty weak: If yous already earn over $40,000, and so you need to gain an extra $40,000 per year but to proceeds 0.5 on a x point scale of life satisfaction. You can expect footling if whatsoever noticeable result on twenty-four hour period-to-twenty-four hours happiness, stress or sadness. That's a lot of income for a limited proceeds.

What about the possibility that people who earn more are happier because of their money, simply this is counteracted by them having to work longer hours in less pleasant jobs? If that's what's going on, winning the lottery would make you happier, but choosing a higher paying task wouldn't.

Then, what about lottery winners? When people write well-nigh income and happiness they ever mention this report that supposedly shows lottery winners were no happier a yr or two afterward winning. This would be adept evidence that there'south about no relationship between income and happiness, even if you could get the money without having to practise any extra work.

Withal, nosotros went and read the original report, and plant that actually the lottery winners were happier – they reported their happiness as 4 (out of six) compared to 3.82 for the command group.¹⁶

Just the real problem is that the report had a tiny sample: in that location were just 22 winners. This was so pocket-sized – and the command group then inappropriately selected – that the authors themselves didn't believe they had yet discovered much. Unfortunately, the story was besides good for people to bother fact checking.

(This is also the paper you might accept heard cited saying paraplegics are no less happy than anyone else – this is nonsense for the aforementioned reason. In fact paraplegics rated their general happiness as 2.96, much lower than others.)

Newer studies with larger samples have generally establish that lottery winners seem a piffling better off – at least later their family and friends stop request them for coin. Unfortunately, information technology'due south difficult to say much because i) the samples are usually pocket-size, two) the winnings are oft also small, and iii) the upshot measures all differ from ane another, and from the papers above.^{17 eighteen xix 20 21 22}

So in the end, what bear witness we can get about lottery winners supports what we already thought: more than income makes yous happier, merely simply a little.

How exercise these figures use to me?

The figures in a higher place are based on surveying a cross-section of people in a state. To customize the $40,000 threshold for yourself, you lot might desire to make the post-obit adjustments:

• The $forty,000 figure was from 2009. Due to inflation, it's more than like $45,000 in 2016.
• Add $20,000 per dependent who does non work that you fully back up.
• Add 50% if y'all live in an expensive metropolis (e.g. NY, SF), or subtract xxx% if you live somewhere cheap (east.g. rural Tennessee). Y'all can find cost of living calculations online, like this ane.
• Add together more if you're particularly motivated by money (or decrease some if you lot have frugal tastes).
• Add v-10% in club to be able to salvage enough for retirement (or however much y'all personally need to relieve in social club to be able to maintain the standard of living described higher up). Information technology'due south true the people in the surveys higher up were saving for retirement, but we suspect not plenty.

The average college graduate in the United states earns $77,000 per twelvemonth over his or her life, while the boilerplate Ivy League graduate earns over $110,000.²³ The upshot is that if you're a college graduate in the U.S. (or a like country), then you lot'll probable end up well into the range where more than income has nearly no outcome on your happiness.

Are there exceptions to this general rule?

The story might be dissimilar if you lot care about money more than than most people. If that's true there could be opportunities to gain money that wouldn't be worth it for most people, but are for you.

In that location's empirical support for this. A small percent of people say making money is a summit priority for them at the start of their careers, and these people do turn out to be significantly more satisfied if they go on to make a lot of information technology.²⁴ Perchance this is because they enjoy spending money more than others, or maybe it'south just that checking their income is how they track their success. Unfortunately, people whose main goals require earning money are also less satisfied with their lives on average.

If y'all want to support more fiscal dependents, you will demand to earn more before the income-happiness relationship weakens in the way described in a higher place. As well, if you live somewhere with an unusually loftier cost of living, you can scale up the figures at which money stops helping. Finally, if your friends are becoming wealthy and you want to go on to socialise with them in expensive places, money may besides be more valuable for you, though we don't know of any specific studies on this.

Conversely, if none of those apply, actress income may practice even less for your happiness than these aggregate surveys suggest.

How much does income matter relative to other factors?

If you're educated and in a rich country so at that place are other factors that will impact your happiness and satisfaction much more than extra income.

• Ball & Chernova calculate that for the median single individual, the happiness boost produced past marriage is matched merely by a 767% increase in accented income, or past an increment in relative income from the 50th to the 88th percentile.²⁵
• They likewise found the boost associated with moving from a wellness rating of 3 to 4 (when health is scored from 1 to v) is matched but past a 6,531% increase in absolute income, or past a move from the 50th to the 100th percentile in relative income.
• Being widowed (as a woman) or losing your job (as a man) appears to reduce life satisfaction by near 0.5 points, on a scale of ane-7. Using our estimates above, this would be the same every bit having your income fall or rise past two thirds.²⁶
• Having a close friend go happy as well seems to increment your chance of beingness happy a great deal (at least 10%).²⁷

What does this mean for your career option?

Nosotros think the message is articulate: if you want a satisfying career, once you're earning above most $forty,000, don't focus on earning more coin. Instead, focus on the factors we recommend in our commodity on how to find fulfilling work.

This is widely accepted by experts in the field. For example: Timothy Judge, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame, suggests that if y'all ultimately intendance virtually having a job that's satisfying:

You would be better off weighing other job attributes higher than pay.

(Though note the possible exceptional conditions above.)

What does this mean for having a positive impact on the world?

Money can become much further in the poorest countries. It's clear that higher incomes benefit people in serious poverty. If the relationship betwixt income and satisfaction is logarithmic, or fifty-fifty more sharply declining, you need 50-100 times as much money to increase the satisfaction and happiness of an educated American as that of someone in the poorest billion people.²⁸

This is ane of the main reasons nosotros think that if you lot want to help people alive today, it'southward important to focus on the furnishings your actions have on those in the developing world. That's true whether we're talking almost giving to charity, enacting policy reform, or setting up a social enterprise. Their welfare is merely much more responsive to changes in income.²⁹

You may have greater knowledge of your local community, just that'southward probably not enough to make upwardly for the fact that your resources could get 1 hundred times as far if yous focus on the very poorest people. And fortunately there is high quality inquiry you tin rely on to know what actually works in the developing world. Ane of the elevation opportunities is merely directly giving money to the very poor.

If you gave money to charity, would it make yous more than satisfied or less?

The results higher up suggest that if you lot're a professional in a rich state, having a lower income won't make you much less happy. As a issue the personal costs of donating to charity are also likely small-scale.

Moreover, altruistic money is not at all the same as not earning it in the get-go identify. Someone with an income that's low relative to what they aspire to may feel unsuccessful, and therefore unsatisfied with their life. Simply if you earn a good salary and donate a big chunk, you probably won't feel that way. On the contrary – you'll see yourself as successfully striving to make your mark on the globe.

There's considerable bear witness that acts of altruism brand us happier, more satisfied and even healthier. This includes acts of clemency, equally well as other means of helping people such as buying gifts for friends and family.

This ways that donating money could hands make you happier than spending information technology on yourself.

For instance:

Imagine the following scenario. Yous are a participant in a psychological experiment: you are given an envelope containing a small sum of money, which you are asked to spend within 24 hours. The experimenter can assign yous to 1 of atmospheric condition: she tin require that you spend the coin on yourself (paying a bill or ownership yourself a treat) or she tin can crave that you spend the money on others (ownership a present for someone or donating the money to clemency).

…the experimenters found that subjects in the prosocial spending status reported greater happiness after spending their windfall than did those in the personal spending condition. This was not an isolated result. Dunn et al. besides conducted a longitudinal study of sixteen employees at a Boston based visitor who received a profit-sharing bonus, finding that those who devoted more than of their bonus to prosocial spending experienced greater happiness as a event of spending their windfall; a cross-sectional study of a representative sample of Americans too found greater prosocial spending correlated with significantly greater happiness, while personal spending turned out to be unrelated to happiness.

Aknin et al. examined survey-data from 136 countries gathered by the Gallup System, to see whether ratings of subjective wellbeing were positively correlated with donating to charity. Decision-making for household income, it was found, in 122 of the 136 countries, that there is a positive correlation between subjective wellbeing and answering Yes to the question 'Take you donated money to charity in the terminal month?' On boilerplate, it was found, "donating to charity has a similar relationship to subjective wellbeing as a doubling of household income."

We worry that terminal effect is confounded by organized religion: membership of a church both predicts charitable giving and higher welfare. But there's adept reason to think that giving away coin volition lower your subjective well-being significantly less than non having it in the first place.

Of course, this tin't justify any level of donations. Every bit is the case for everything else nosotros spend our money on, the selfish benefits nosotros get from donations will experience declining marginal returns: giving $2,000 won't exist twice as fulfilling as giving $i,000. And, in accordance with the logarithmic returns to spending described higher up, the more than money you donate, the more valuable is each incremental dollar of other personal consumption y'all're surrender.

Still, I'd expect a moderate level of giving to pb to a similarly happy life as no giving, specially if you make your donations frequent and highly salient, and so that you tin savor the satisfaction that comes forth with assertive y'all're helping others.

The bottom line

You lot have probably heard both from people who say earning a good income is both incredibly important, and not important at all. As is often the example when you look advisedly at the evidence, the truth seems to be somewhere in betwixt.

Unfortunately, existing enquiry is non good enough to say for sure what impact a randomly assigned increment in income has on someone's welfare. Hopefully more than thorough research on lottery winners will answer this question in the futurity. Merely until and so we at least have a lot of data on how people who earn both a lot and a little report feeling well-nigh their lives.

If you lot're poor, having even small amounts of extra coin is associated with meaning gains in welfare. People in very poor countries written report depression levels of satisfaction with their lives, though their day-to-day happiness is surprisingly resilient.

Simply nigh of our readers are university graduates in rich countries, the group that is least likely to benefit from higher income. For them, making a meaningful contribution to their society and having good relationships with friends and family are likely to do them more good than a higher paying job. Inasmuch equally earning more means sacrificing these things it'south a very questionable trade.

If you lot'd like to learn more about how to have a career that makes yous both happy and fulfilled sign upwardly to our newsletter and we'll update you on our latest research each month.

You can besides continue reading our guide to finding a career that makes you truly happy.

---

Appendix I – But I've always been told we just wait at relative rather than absolute income?

This remains the source of some controversy, but nosotros think the answer is that we intendance about both absolute and relative income.

Yous may have heard of the 'Easterlin Paradox': why don't people get much happier when their country becomes richer? The popular explanation in the 70s and 80s was this: people are briefly happy when their income rises, and happier when they are richer than others around them, but don't value it in the long term when their country equally a whole becomes richer.³⁰

The findings in the mail service in a higher place cast serious dubiousness on whether at that place is any paradox to explicate. People in richer countries are somewhat more satisfied.

But Easterlin, who is now ninety and has spent much of his life studying this apparent paradox, was not convinced by this data. He published two papers in response, attempting to show that how quickly a country gets richer doesn't correlate with how quickly information technology gets satisfied.^{31 32} Easterlin believed the error being made by others was:

In the present analysis we demonstrate that these alien results ascend chiefly from disruptive a short-term positive happiness – income association, due to fluctuations in macroeconomic conditions, with the long-term human relationship. We suggest, speculatively, that this disparity between the curt and long-term association is due to the social psychological phenomenon of "loss aversion".

In response, Wolfers and Stevenson updated their paper to look at how economic growth relates to satisfaction growth over the longest timescales they could analyse.^{3 33} Examining the figures in their paper, the two do seem to move together, though there'southward a lot of other variation. This is to be expected. When you try to relate growth rates in two things, at that place is a lot of room for measurement error: in baseline income, final income, baseline satisfaction, and concluding satisfaction. You mensurate all of these imperfectly, creating a lot of noise that obscures whatever shared movement they have. Furthermore, no i claims economic growth is the only, or fifty-fifty most of import thing, determining shifts in happiness.

Wolfers and Stevenson explain the disagreement this way:

…you should never confuse absence of evidence with testify of absence. Easterlin'southward mistake is to conclude that when a correlation is statistically insignificant, it must be zero. But if you put together a dataset with only a few countries in it – or in Easterlin's analysis, have a dataset with lots of countries, but throw abroad a bunch of it, and discard inconvenient observations – and then you'll typically observe statistically insignificant results. This is even more than problematic when yous apply statistical techniques that don't extract all of the information from your data. Think about it this way: if you flip a coin three times, and it comes upwards heads all three times, you still don't take much reason to call up that the coin is biased. But it would be lightheaded to say, "there'due south no compelling evidence that the coin is biased, so information technology must be off-white." Yet that'due south Easterlin's logic.

Nobel Prize winner Angus Deaton, by contrast, finds some bear witness that relative income matters for 'happiness', but doesn't for satisfaction.³⁴ He comments:

The most famous [unresolved puzzle] is the Easterlin paradox that in spite of the positive result of income on life evaluation and on happiness, at that place appears to have been fiddling event of economic growth. That at that place is a paradox at all has been robustly challenged past Daniel Sacks, Betsey Stevenson, and Justin Wolfers (2012), and Easterlin'south counter-evidence rests heavily on long-run Chinese data of dubious comparability. This literature typically does not brand the distinction betwixt evaluative and hedonic measures that is and so of import here.

As an aside, 1 newspaper attempts to explicate the failure of Chinese happiness to rise with reference to much higher air pollution.³⁵

This question isn't fully resolved, only we're more than convinced by Wolfers and Stevenson's latest (draft) paper on the topic, which shows a combination of positive and neutral relationships and offers several explanations for why others have non found the same results.³⁶ The arguments come down to methodological details that are tricky to explicate, and so if you'd like to explore them I recommend reading the discussion section of the paper.

There's also a mutual sense statement that we find compelling: if richer countries are more than satisfied than poorer ones, which seems to be the case, it would be remarkable if countries didn't get eventually more satisfied afterwards they got richer, whatever the cause of the human relationship between them. I doubtable by studies were only not proficient enough to pick upward the issue.

Unfortunately near all of this appendix concerns income and satisfaction. Given that the income and happiness relationship is weaker to get-go with, it wouldn't surprise me if the unpleasant aspects of economic growth, such equally pollution, made economical evolution a pretty ineffective way to increase solar day-to-day happiness – at to the lowest degree until countries had been wealthy long enough to fix up those problems and invest their higher income in other changes that make them happy.³⁷ Unfortunately, the data on this question is more limited and hasn't been the focus of and then much inquiry.

Relish this? There's much more where that came from.

Join our newsletter and get updates on our latest research:

Source: https://80000hours.org/articles/money-and-happiness/

Posted by: sebringlour1993.blogspot.com

Share this post