Maybe money does buy happiness after all
March 11, 2023 5:39 AM Subscribe
In 2010, Deaton and Kahneman famously found that income above $75,000 is not associated with higher happiness (previously). In a 2020 study, Matthew Killingsworth got different results (Experienced well-being rises with income, even above $75,000 per year), so Kahneman and Killingsworth engaged in "adversarial collaboration", seeking to resolve their dispute through joint research, with Barbara Mellers as their facilitator. The result was Income and emotional well-being: A conflict resolved. They found that unless you're among the miserable 15%, money does appear to boost happiness... up to earnings of $500,000.
The top end for happiness might be even higher than that, since the study didn't include enough $500,000+ earners to draw statistically significant conclusions.
And for 30% of people, the increase in happiness accelerates above an income of $100,00.
The top end for happiness might be even higher than that, since the study didn't include enough $500,000+ earners to draw statistically significant conclusions.
And for 30% of people, the increase in happiness accelerates above an income of $100,00.
The top end for happiness might be even higher than that, since the study didn't include enough $500,000+ earners to draw statistically significant conclusions.
This should read: due to the low number of high earners, the study didn’t have the power to detect for income effects on happiness for this group. Not having enough observations to “draw statistically significant conclusions”” doesn’t make sense.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:04 AM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
This should read: due to the low number of high earners, the study didn’t have the power to detect for income effects on happiness for this group. Not having enough observations to “draw statistically significant conclusions”” doesn’t make sense.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:04 AM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
(For those curious, 75k 2010 dollars is approximately 92k 2020 dollars, and approximately 105k 2022 dollars.)
My happiness, which had been rising, just dropped.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:18 AM on March 11, 2023 [43 favorites]
My happiness, which had been rising, just dropped.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:18 AM on March 11, 2023 [43 favorites]
"differences in income below $80,000 were comparatively stronger in reducing negative feelings, while differences in income above $80,000 were comparatively stronger in increasing positive feelings"
This makes sense. You worry about not meeting your needs below $80k, while anything above that just feeds your sense of smug satisfaction of lording it over the other peasants.
I actually wonder if / how they control for the effects of social status, because it is linked inextricably to income - a senior manager, for example, will have social status, authority, agency and control.
The top end for happiness might be even higher than that, since the study didn't include enough $500,000+ earners to draw statistically significant conclusions.
This should read: due to the low number of high earners, the study didn’t have the power to detect for income effects on happiness for this group. Not having enough observations to “draw statistically significant conclusions”” doesn’t make sense.
They actually do mention this in the OSF notes - basically, you can't draw any conclusion about the last income segment - whether it is higher, lower or the same as the adjacent segment is simply noise. If they restricted their findings to about $100,000 and missed out on seeing the sharply upward trend past that, they could have justifiably concluded happiness didn't increase past $100,000 either.
posted by xdvesper at 6:25 AM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
This makes sense. You worry about not meeting your needs below $80k, while anything above that just feeds your sense of smug satisfaction of lording it over the other peasants.
I actually wonder if / how they control for the effects of social status, because it is linked inextricably to income - a senior manager, for example, will have social status, authority, agency and control.
The top end for happiness might be even higher than that, since the study didn't include enough $500,000+ earners to draw statistically significant conclusions.
This should read: due to the low number of high earners, the study didn’t have the power to detect for income effects on happiness for this group. Not having enough observations to “draw statistically significant conclusions”” doesn’t make sense.
They actually do mention this in the OSF notes - basically, you can't draw any conclusion about the last income segment - whether it is higher, lower or the same as the adjacent segment is simply noise. If they restricted their findings to about $100,000 and missed out on seeing the sharply upward trend past that, they could have justifiably concluded happiness didn't increase past $100,000 either.
posted by xdvesper at 6:25 AM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
while anything above that just feeds your sense of smug satisfaction of lording it over the other peasants.
As much as I love this framing, I suspect that for people who have fun having fun - among whom I am not - having lots more money to spend on lots more fun is, like, wooooooooooo!
posted by clawsoon at 6:34 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
As much as I love this framing, I suspect that for people who have fun having fun - among whom I am not - having lots more money to spend on lots more fun is, like, wooooooooooo!
posted by clawsoon at 6:34 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
I actually wonder if / how they control for the effects of social status, because it is linked inextricably to income - a senior manager, for example, will have social status, authority, agency and control.
This probably isn’t a good idea. Most of current statistical research is showing that throwing in controls is going to be a bad idea, and the estimate of your main effect of interest is going to measure something different with those controls.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:50 AM on March 11, 2023
This probably isn’t a good idea. Most of current statistical research is showing that throwing in controls is going to be a bad idea, and the estimate of your main effect of interest is going to measure something different with those controls.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:50 AM on March 11, 2023
This is interesting! I suspect that the majority of my day-to-day interactions are with people from households making around, below, or well below the 2023 $102,000 mark. The variation in happiness and anxiety and so on does seem to break substantially at different tiers (can go to doctor at will; can own a car; can own some type of real estate; can afford to have children and not starve; etc.), with a leveling out in happiness toward that mark, where the United States' not-well-social-safety-netted society is less of a burden.
I hadn't read the 2020 study, and I don't know what I think about it or the adversarial study yet, but I will say that I've noticed certain kinds of happiness or satisfaction in people in that $100,000-500,000 range who are able to do various kinds of fun things or make big, self-indulgent purchases that open entirely new doors for them. The social status and related stuff is a factor for many of them, but others I know or have known simply get to experience more and different kinds of... happiness.
for people who have fun having fun - among whom I am not
I don't understand. What does that mean? That you do not enjoy fun?
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:56 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
I hadn't read the 2020 study, and I don't know what I think about it or the adversarial study yet, but I will say that I've noticed certain kinds of happiness or satisfaction in people in that $100,000-500,000 range who are able to do various kinds of fun things or make big, self-indulgent purchases that open entirely new doors for them. The social status and related stuff is a factor for many of them, but others I know or have known simply get to experience more and different kinds of... happiness.
for people who have fun having fun - among whom I am not
I don't understand. What does that mean? That you do not enjoy fun?
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:56 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
In addition to the specifics, don't trust social science research until there's some time to examine it.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:56 AM on March 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:56 AM on March 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
I don't understand. What does that mean? That you do not enjoy fun?
Indeed. I am also suspicious of joy.
posted by clawsoon at 6:59 AM on March 11, 2023 [16 favorites]
Indeed. I am also suspicious of joy.
posted by clawsoon at 6:59 AM on March 11, 2023 [16 favorites]
They missed a trick by not citing the Micawber Principle: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery."
Of course, £20 in 1850 is worth £3,444.65 today, which is only a little of $4k, which is more than an order of magnitude off from these findings. Perhaps its time for another round of collaborative competition? (Dickens, being dead, will have to be a silent partner.)
posted by basalganglia at 6:59 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
Of course, £20 in 1850 is worth £3,444.65 today, which is only a little of $4k, which is more than an order of magnitude off from these findings. Perhaps its time for another round of collaborative competition? (Dickens, being dead, will have to be a silent partner.)
posted by basalganglia at 6:59 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
Point that I needed to track down, and which may help others determine if they're happy -- the incomes reported here are annual household incomes, pre-tax.
posted by miguelcervantes at 7:03 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by miguelcervantes at 7:03 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
I enjoy getting paid more without an increase in status. There’s comfort in knowing the people telling you what to do make less money.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 7:10 AM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 7:10 AM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
This aligns better with my life experience. To uh put it mildly
posted by potrzebie at 7:18 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by potrzebie at 7:18 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Income level is made up by enough people as to not matter, and if it is accurate, the happiness level might not be, but for different reasons. A good survey would be find out by how much these things are fudged and why, if self-aware. Back when normal was more equal, self-reports were likely fine, but now everyday reality is questioned by most people, and they don't trust surveys anymore. Other things to adjust for: alcohol consumption, weekly physical exercise, church attendance, amount of junk food consumed, amount of healthy food consumed, charitable contributions, marriage commitment, patriotism, education level.
posted by Brian B. at 7:28 AM on March 11, 2023
posted by Brian B. at 7:28 AM on March 11, 2023
Even if you're making a couple of hundred thousand a year, medical misfortune can wipe that all out right? I can understand that people making well over $75k would still have very real worries about future. I wonder how income affects happiness in places with much stronger safety nets.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 7:31 AM on March 11, 2023 [24 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 7:31 AM on March 11, 2023 [24 favorites]
^ This. ^
We would be considered middle class here in Ontario and despite wishing we could save more money (COL keeps on rising but wages don't, amirite), I do feel somewhat secure knowing that my basic medical needs are covered without cost. So instead I transfer my medical worries to my mom back home in South Carolina.
posted by Kitteh at 7:40 AM on March 11, 2023 [9 favorites]
We would be considered middle class here in Ontario and despite wishing we could save more money (COL keeps on rising but wages don't, amirite), I do feel somewhat secure knowing that my basic medical needs are covered without cost. So instead I transfer my medical worries to my mom back home in South Carolina.
posted by Kitteh at 7:40 AM on March 11, 2023 [9 favorites]
As much as I love this framing, I suspect that for people who have fun having fun - among whom I am not - having lots more money to spend on lots more fun is, like, wooooooooooo!
Based on the folks I know at higher income levels, it’s somewhat about having fun, and somewhat about expensive status signals, but also about lots of optional-but-nice quality of life improvements. As a friend put it once: “The $200 slippers really are worth it.”
On preview: I also agree with “any portmanteau in a storm” on the safety net point. Assuming you manage to save at all, that extra income doesn’t just buy toys and status. It buys peace of mind about your ability to withstand disaster.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 7:42 AM on March 11, 2023 [13 favorites]
Based on the folks I know at higher income levels, it’s somewhat about having fun, and somewhat about expensive status signals, but also about lots of optional-but-nice quality of life improvements. As a friend put it once: “The $200 slippers really are worth it.”
On preview: I also agree with “any portmanteau in a storm” on the safety net point. Assuming you manage to save at all, that extra income doesn’t just buy toys and status. It buys peace of mind about your ability to withstand disaster.
posted by learning from frequent failure at 7:42 AM on March 11, 2023 [13 favorites]
It’s more that poverty makes you miserable, imo
posted by Phanx at 7:45 AM on March 11, 2023 [15 favorites]
posted by Phanx at 7:45 AM on March 11, 2023 [15 favorites]
It’s more that poverty makes you miserable, imo
It seems like they found multiple effects, and that was one of them. For the 30% who see their happiness going up faster than their income after they cross $100,000, though, there seems to be something extra going on. Not just a reduction in misery, but also an increase in lovin' it.
posted by clawsoon at 7:51 AM on March 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
It seems like they found multiple effects, and that was one of them. For the 30% who see their happiness going up faster than their income after they cross $100,000, though, there seems to be something extra going on. Not just a reduction in misery, but also an increase in lovin' it.
posted by clawsoon at 7:51 AM on March 11, 2023 [10 favorites]
Raise taxes on happy people.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:09 AM on March 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 8:09 AM on March 11, 2023 [5 favorites]
Raise taxes on happy people utility monsters.
posted by clawsoon at 8:16 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 8:16 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'm a mostly-retired teacher (I retired from full-time teaching last June (at 57) and now I do some subbing and contract work) living on between 70 and 95,000 (that's gross income - net income would average between 3300 and 5000/month) in rural southern Manitoba, Canada. We live about one hour from the provincial capital, Winnipeg. No mortgage or car debt. No debt at all, right now anyway. We feel fortunate and pretty happy. Obviously more would be nice to "play," but whatever. It's all good.
IF we were living in B.C. or Ontario in a rural area about one hour from the provincial capital, my income/money situation would almost certainly not feel the same. I would almost certainly not be retired or debt free. I would not feel the same happiness I do here. I would need significantly more income to make up the "relative cost of living" difference.
I didn't see this "relative cost of living" accounted for in the study. Did I miss it? My sense of happiness based on my income is very much dependent on where I live, and the cost of living where I live.
posted by kneecapped at 8:40 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
IF we were living in B.C. or Ontario in a rural area about one hour from the provincial capital, my income/money situation would almost certainly not feel the same. I would almost certainly not be retired or debt free. I would not feel the same happiness I do here. I would need significantly more income to make up the "relative cost of living" difference.
I didn't see this "relative cost of living" accounted for in the study. Did I miss it? My sense of happiness based on my income is very much dependent on where I live, and the cost of living where I live.
posted by kneecapped at 8:40 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
That 75k study played a significant role in my career and life choices. Lucky for me, I'm in the 15 percent, so this updated study wouldn't have changed my behavior? Would be nice to have more money though.
posted by Hume at 8:43 AM on March 11, 2023
posted by Hume at 8:43 AM on March 11, 2023
How does this work? For me, asking if I'm happy in the winter or summer, or after recently seeing a good concert vs being stuck in traffic would result in different happiness answers.
posted by cccorlew at 8:55 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by cccorlew at 8:55 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
The big missing confound here is wealth.
People with income well above median in their area tend to also accumulate wealth. That wealth buffers them from the stresses or even the choices associated with living within your income. It also means the future, including retirement, is much more secure and less of a source of doom or even worry. These effects are not negligible, in evaluating present happiness.
See also, "wealth tax"
posted by Dashy at 9:06 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
People with income well above median in their area tend to also accumulate wealth. That wealth buffers them from the stresses or even the choices associated with living within your income. It also means the future, including retirement, is much more secure and less of a source of doom or even worry. These effects are not negligible, in evaluating present happiness.
See also, "wealth tax"
posted by Dashy at 9:06 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
For me, asking if I'm happy in the winter or summer, or after recently seeing a good concert vs being stuck in traffic would result in different happiness answers.
From the paper, it sounds like they randomly pinged people's smartphones a few times a day to ask them how they were feeling and what they were doing. I'm guessing they designed the study that way for precisely the reason you're giving. They did that with ~30,000 people.
posted by clawsoon at 9:08 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
From the paper, it sounds like they randomly pinged people's smartphones a few times a day to ask them how they were feeling and what they were doing. I'm guessing they designed the study that way for precisely the reason you're giving. They did that with ~30,000 people.
posted by clawsoon at 9:08 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
I went to some sort of Buddhism 101 hour-long class in a library once. The lecturer explained that happiness is 10% extrinsic (external factors) and 90% intrinsic (internal factors). Sure doesn't feel that way if you ask me, but it feels true to me anyway.
So even if money can buy happiness, it can only buy a small fraction of one's happiness. The bulk of it comes from within.
posted by aniola at 9:23 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
So even if money can buy happiness, it can only buy a small fraction of one's happiness. The bulk of it comes from within.
posted by aniola at 9:23 AM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
I think the framing here is off - there is a log-income relationship (increasing income by $K increases happiness by x%).
Increasing inequality destroys happiness (you need to increase income by $50K if you are making $100K to get the same increase in happiness from increasing income by $25k if you are making $50K).
posted by web5.0 at 9:29 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Increasing inequality destroys happiness (you need to increase income by $50K if you are making $100K to get the same increase in happiness from increasing income by $25k if you are making $50K).
posted by web5.0 at 9:29 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
How is wealth a confounder here?
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:32 AM on March 11, 2023
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 9:32 AM on March 11, 2023
I wonder what the results would be in a society that wasn’t obsessed with money. I mean, if everything you have ever seen and learned told you richer is better, is this result a surprise?
posted by snofoam at 9:37 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by snofoam at 9:37 AM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
How is wealth a confounder here?
A person sitting on $1M of wealth (house, car paid off in full, savings and retirement fund, etc.) will be happier with a lower salary than someone with $0 or even negative wealth who has a higher salary.
Not like, in a guaranteed way, but it'll definitely trend that way.
posted by explosion at 9:58 AM on March 11, 2023 [15 favorites]
A person sitting on $1M of wealth (house, car paid off in full, savings and retirement fund, etc.) will be happier with a lower salary than someone with $0 or even negative wealth who has a higher salary.
Not like, in a guaranteed way, but it'll definitely trend that way.
posted by explosion at 9:58 AM on March 11, 2023 [15 favorites]
>For the 30% who see their happiness going up faster than their income after they cross $100,000,
I'm skeptical of studies like this but if it were true one obvious potential cause is stuff like university tuition. If someone making $60k makes more, schools just charge them more. Above $100k or so you may already be paying full freight.
posted by Easy problem of consciousness at 10:11 AM on March 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
I'm skeptical of studies like this but if it were true one obvious potential cause is stuff like university tuition. If someone making $60k makes more, schools just charge them more. Above $100k or so you may already be paying full freight.
posted by Easy problem of consciousness at 10:11 AM on March 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
do we have a pie chart somewhere that actually breaks down the components of what constitutes happiness? Money is obviously on it, but then so are things like health (physical and other), sense of "meaning", connectedness ... and so on.
Or as I recall Bruce Springsteen once putting when asked, now that you're a multimillionaire, how do you continue to write songs that appeal to such a big audience? "Well, one thing you realize is that having lots of money only really solves your financial problems. Which contrary to what I maybe used to think are not ALL of my problems."
posted by philip-random at 10:11 AM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
Or as I recall Bruce Springsteen once putting when asked, now that you're a multimillionaire, how do you continue to write songs that appeal to such a big audience? "Well, one thing you realize is that having lots of money only really solves your financial problems. Which contrary to what I maybe used to think are not ALL of my problems."
posted by philip-random at 10:11 AM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
How is wealth a confounder here?
In the US top 1% for household income is a bit over $500K, top 1% for wealth is a bit over $10M.
$500K/year is (obviously) a lot. Figure 300-350 after taxes, saving 200-250/year if they're trying hard to save but not being fanatical about it. They still have to go back to the office on Monday every week, medical problems can still bankrupt them and so on. A lot of the jobs here are high-stress/high-hours. And even at that (absurd) savings rate for an entire career it's not enough to get to $11M.
But someone with $11M can basically not worry about any of that. They can choose to worry about not having enough to buy the big mansion, or about not having enough for all their kids/grandkids to be independently wealthy or whatever, but only if they want to. And investing $11M will probably "earn" a top 1% income or close to it with basically 0 effort.
posted by ethand at 10:49 AM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
In the US top 1% for household income is a bit over $500K, top 1% for wealth is a bit over $10M.
$500K/year is (obviously) a lot. Figure 300-350 after taxes, saving 200-250/year if they're trying hard to save but not being fanatical about it. They still have to go back to the office on Monday every week, medical problems can still bankrupt them and so on. A lot of the jobs here are high-stress/high-hours. And even at that (absurd) savings rate for an entire career it's not enough to get to $11M.
But someone with $11M can basically not worry about any of that. They can choose to worry about not having enough to buy the big mansion, or about not having enough for all their kids/grandkids to be independently wealthy or whatever, but only if they want to. And investing $11M will probably "earn" a top 1% income or close to it with basically 0 effort.
posted by ethand at 10:49 AM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
I don't understand. What does that mean? That you do not enjoy fun?
Indeed. I am also suspicious of joy.
I've joked a few times over the years about MeFites being a miserable lot, and satisfied with it. Overeducated and underemployed, etc.
It would be nice if it was really a joke.
I think this is a serious and underappreciated problem of the left side of the political spectrum in general, when the people best suited to moving humanity forward have the least motivation, and when motivated mostly do so out of some kind of sense of greater good. Which is nice, but a difficult thing to sustain without a fundamental drive on the scale of religious faith.
Back on topic, I always thought the idea that one maximizes happiness at $75k or whatever, adjusted for inflation, to be woefully incomplete. And cringe inducing on the occasion it was used to prove a point on the blue. My household is pulling in significantly more than that, and I have no qualms about pulling in more if I could, because I want to be buffered against unforeseen calamity. I want to be able to spend my waning years without having to resort to serious discomfort, or to spread that discomfort to my loved ones, all for want of funding. Not to mention, I want to be able to help my loved ones right now, should the need arise. $75k a year would certainly keep a roof over my head and my belly full. But that leaves surprisingly little headroom.
posted by 2N2222 at 11:03 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
Indeed. I am also suspicious of joy.
I've joked a few times over the years about MeFites being a miserable lot, and satisfied with it. Overeducated and underemployed, etc.
It would be nice if it was really a joke.
I think this is a serious and underappreciated problem of the left side of the political spectrum in general, when the people best suited to moving humanity forward have the least motivation, and when motivated mostly do so out of some kind of sense of greater good. Which is nice, but a difficult thing to sustain without a fundamental drive on the scale of religious faith.
Back on topic, I always thought the idea that one maximizes happiness at $75k or whatever, adjusted for inflation, to be woefully incomplete. And cringe inducing on the occasion it was used to prove a point on the blue. My household is pulling in significantly more than that, and I have no qualms about pulling in more if I could, because I want to be buffered against unforeseen calamity. I want to be able to spend my waning years without having to resort to serious discomfort, or to spread that discomfort to my loved ones, all for want of funding. Not to mention, I want to be able to help my loved ones right now, should the need arise. $75k a year would certainly keep a roof over my head and my belly full. But that leaves surprisingly little headroom.
posted by 2N2222 at 11:03 AM on March 11, 2023 [12 favorites]
I’ve never made anything close to $75K/yr in my entire life and every time that study gets trotted out it seems to be to be saying “$75K a year, which of course is a normal amount of money for regular people to have” and it makes me want to fucking scream
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:17 AM on March 11, 2023 [22 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:17 AM on March 11, 2023 [22 favorites]
I've made 75K (or a little more) a few times in my life, but mostly I haven't. I can absolutely attest that those "few times" were never the best (happiest?) times for me. Neither, I should point, were they the worst. But they did pretty much always end up angling me toward some kind of health collapse. That is, the effort it was taking to maintain that income was not good for me (mind or body).
I am Canadian. I do live in country that has something akin to a social safety net. Which when I've needed it has simultaneously sucked (trust me, you never want to be dependent on the machinations of some lumbering bureaucratic system) and certainly proved better than the alternative (ie: falling through the cracks).
posted by philip-random at 11:29 AM on March 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
I am Canadian. I do live in country that has something akin to a social safety net. Which when I've needed it has simultaneously sucked (trust me, you never want to be dependent on the machinations of some lumbering bureaucratic system) and certainly proved better than the alternative (ie: falling through the cracks).
posted by philip-random at 11:29 AM on March 11, 2023 [2 favorites]
I've been up and down the income scale described here (not quite to $500K, though), and my personal experience tracks with this. Maybe you can only feel it if you actually consciously pass this point, rather than starting higher up, but there is definitely a point at which you pass from a steady gnawing worry about whether you can maintain a fragile economic equilibrium to a point where the money can be devoted primarily to pleasure and to long-term goals. In my few years at the higher end, I knew very well that I had more than I needed, but I also really enjoyed some of the benefits, particularly being able to travel relatively freely and in comfort (I did the broke-student traveling too, in my day, but that gets less appealing with a middle-aged back, etc.). Being able to get a lie-flat business-class bed on a red-eye flight to Europe, for example, can make a serious difference for how you feel in the first couple of days, and it's not like you have infinite time. And, honestly, being able to solve people's (smaller) problems by writing a check feels really good.
But I had a clear idea of what is and is not worth it, so I wasn't spending just to meet some arbitrary social standard. Going to a European city, looking at their art and architecture, eating their delicious foods...I get genuine pleasure out of that. If I had just been buying "a car of the same economic class as the neighbors'" (I don't think the infamous Cut article on the Fleishman TV adaptation was linked here, but that kind of approach to life), I don't think it would've done much for me. And I also think I was plateauing. I wouldn't have expected the next jump in pleasure to be before about $10m in assets, when I could stop working and still maintain a similar lifestyle. Because actual freedom would've been the next hedonic good that mattered.
posted by praemunire at 12:21 PM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
But I had a clear idea of what is and is not worth it, so I wasn't spending just to meet some arbitrary social standard. Going to a European city, looking at their art and architecture, eating their delicious foods...I get genuine pleasure out of that. If I had just been buying "a car of the same economic class as the neighbors'" (I don't think the infamous Cut article on the Fleishman TV adaptation was linked here, but that kind of approach to life), I don't think it would've done much for me. And I also think I was plateauing. I wouldn't have expected the next jump in pleasure to be before about $10m in assets, when I could stop working and still maintain a similar lifestyle. Because actual freedom would've been the next hedonic good that mattered.
posted by praemunire at 12:21 PM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
From what I can tell, these studies simply ask people making different amounts of money how they feel, on a daily basis, and find that people making more money report feeling happy more often. If that's accurate, then it's inaccurate to describe this as "more money makes you happier", which is how it's frequently reported. More specifically, from the data they collected, there's no reason to conclude that if you took people making 50k, and gave them another 40k, then they'd feel happier. It's certainly possible, and perhaps likely, that this indeed would be the case, but the results of the surveys themselves do not provide evidence for that conclusion.
On a related note, and repeating some of what's been said above, if you compare people with higher incomes to those with lower incomes, then there may be many factors aside from income that separate them, on average. Those could include things like the circumstances in which they grew up, how much they inherited, their level of education, health, disability, social status, marital status, etc. All of those could have significant effects on happiness, independently of current income. I would want to see that sort of thing parsed, before drawing grand conclusions about income and happiness. It's entirely possible that income is a proxy for some other set of factors that are even more strongly correlated with happiness.
posted by epimorph at 1:24 PM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
On a related note, and repeating some of what's been said above, if you compare people with higher incomes to those with lower incomes, then there may be many factors aside from income that separate them, on average. Those could include things like the circumstances in which they grew up, how much they inherited, their level of education, health, disability, social status, marital status, etc. All of those could have significant effects on happiness, independently of current income. I would want to see that sort of thing parsed, before drawing grand conclusions about income and happiness. It's entirely possible that income is a proxy for some other set of factors that are even more strongly correlated with happiness.
posted by epimorph at 1:24 PM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
The biggest trick the wealthy ever pulled was convincing the world that money does not buy happiness.
posted by revmitcz at 1:25 PM on March 11, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by revmitcz at 1:25 PM on March 11, 2023 [13 favorites]
>>How is wealth a confounder here?
A person sitting on $1M of wealth (house, car paid off in full, savings and retirement fund, etc.) will be happier with a lower salary than someone with $0 or even negative wealth who has a higher salary.
Yes - and it's systematic across their sample. Lower income correlates with lower wealth; higher income correlates with higher wealth, across their entire spectrum of income (up to $500k). Higher-income people are likely to be happier, but this measurement of happiness is confounded by the wealth that buffers their happiness behind the income.
posted by Dashy at 1:27 PM on March 11, 2023
A person sitting on $1M of wealth (house, car paid off in full, savings and retirement fund, etc.) will be happier with a lower salary than someone with $0 or even negative wealth who has a higher salary.
Yes - and it's systematic across their sample. Lower income correlates with lower wealth; higher income correlates with higher wealth, across their entire spectrum of income (up to $500k). Higher-income people are likely to be happier, but this measurement of happiness is confounded by the wealth that buffers their happiness behind the income.
posted by Dashy at 1:27 PM on March 11, 2023
Money does not buy happiness but it sure does insulate you from unhappiness. Specifically the stress that comes from counting every penny all the damn time.
I think, though, in the US you have to be really quite wealthy in both the income (wages or passive) and existing wealth (real estate/bank account/investments/etc.) to not stress about medical costs. It's not just the expensive treatments for various chronic conditions, though I know I stress about the one I'm on even with a copay card that reduces my cost to $0 monthly. It's the sure knowledge that we're all one car wreck or bad illness away from drowning in medical bills, with no help forthcoming until and unless you've lost everything you own, and then it's pretty questionable.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 1:51 PM on March 11, 2023 [9 favorites]
I think, though, in the US you have to be really quite wealthy in both the income (wages or passive) and existing wealth (real estate/bank account/investments/etc.) to not stress about medical costs. It's not just the expensive treatments for various chronic conditions, though I know I stress about the one I'm on even with a copay card that reduces my cost to $0 monthly. It's the sure knowledge that we're all one car wreck or bad illness away from drowning in medical bills, with no help forthcoming until and unless you've lost everything you own, and then it's pretty questionable.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 1:51 PM on March 11, 2023 [9 favorites]
As Phanx notes, Poverty buys misery. Health care expenses, emergencies, etc. Not being able to travel much, if at all. Missing family events because a plane trip isn't possible, or going anyway, and having credit card debt piling up. Low social status because people think money doesn't matter, and they're wrong. A few friends have acquired wealth, and it very clearly changed them. The flip side is that I'm in America, and even living frugally is living pretty well comparatively. Being able to afford a dog, owning a home, make a huge difference.
Insert rant about Peak Capitalism wrecking everything, cause it does, and is.
posted by theora55 at 2:15 PM on March 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
Insert rant about Peak Capitalism wrecking everything, cause it does, and is.
posted by theora55 at 2:15 PM on March 11, 2023 [3 favorites]
It's the sure knowledge that we're all one car wreck or bad illness away from drowning in medical bills, with no help forthcoming until and unless you've lost everything you own, and then it's pretty questionable.
Amen. Most of life's other expenses are at least finite, or bounded. Like, it'll cost you $x00/mo to house yourself and $y00/mo to feed yourself, but you can get it done for some (arguably) sane, and finite, amount of money. Sure, you can spend more, but.
Medical expenses (especially end-of-life) are just plain infinite. No amount of money will keep you safe. No matter how much you have, it will ALL go away in one fell swoop.
So the feeling of, if I have $X I'll be ok (for self maintenance, for doing "ok", to buy a house, for retiring) just is never ever there.
And private equity firms that are buying up hospice facilities just illustrates that point. Every last dollar, they will hoover, somehow.
posted by Dashy at 2:24 PM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
Amen. Most of life's other expenses are at least finite, or bounded. Like, it'll cost you $x00/mo to house yourself and $y00/mo to feed yourself, but you can get it done for some (arguably) sane, and finite, amount of money. Sure, you can spend more, but.
Medical expenses (especially end-of-life) are just plain infinite. No amount of money will keep you safe. No matter how much you have, it will ALL go away in one fell swoop.
So the feeling of, if I have $X I'll be ok (for self maintenance, for doing "ok", to buy a house, for retiring) just is never ever there.
And private equity firms that are buying up hospice facilities just illustrates that point. Every last dollar, they will hoover, somehow.
posted by Dashy at 2:24 PM on March 11, 2023 [7 favorites]
dang it now I gotta go try to make money this was NOT the plan
posted by alexdobrenko at 2:52 PM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by alexdobrenko at 2:52 PM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
The difference between making 100K and 200K in an average US city is enormous. (I'm talking as a couple here on SS and teacher's pension.) 200K would allow us to go to Paris now and then. Or Cambodia. The Buddhist upthread nails it: travel would not make me much happier, but my partner, yes, it would. But most of us USAians don't travel much, so never mind. There is too much to untangle here, as previous posts point out. Give me 50K more and I would not have to substitute teach to pay off my sub teaching taxes. Well, shit, we're in Ouroboros territory here.
posted by kozad at 3:16 PM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by kozad at 3:16 PM on March 11, 2023 [1 favorite]
Medical expenses (especially end-of-life) are just plain infinite.
I know you know this already, but America is fucked up. Don't ever start feeling like it's a normal and reasonable situation that you live in.
posted by clawsoon at 3:31 PM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
I know you know this already, but America is fucked up. Don't ever start feeling like it's a normal and reasonable situation that you live in.
posted by clawsoon at 3:31 PM on March 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
It's entirely possible that income is a proxy for some other set of factors
Happiness is not merely the absence of worry, but the absence of worry makes it a shitload easier to find happiness.
posted by aramaic at 5:18 PM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
Happiness is not merely the absence of worry, but the absence of worry makes it a shitload easier to find happiness.
posted by aramaic at 5:18 PM on March 11, 2023 [6 favorites]
Living at ground zero of the capitalist apocalypse, or as some deluded fucks like to call it "The greatest Country on Earth!" It's immediately obvious to those of us whose income falls well below their bottom line that money may or may not buy happiness but lack of it puts you directly in the cross hairs of every scheme, policy, and wild notion of the Fuck you, I've got mine! set to make your life less secure and more miserable than it was yesterday. Someone up-thread asked half snarkily of another commenter "You don't enjoy happiness?!" and I'd have to answer, I don't know, let me try it sometime and I'll let you know. That's hyperbole, of course, but I have to say my relationship to the feeling is pretty damned fleeting. Many of my moments of happiness have come at an actual need to sit down and do the math cost analysis to see if I could actually afford it, monetarily. Sometimes the answer was no, but psychologically the price to do without was too high, so my finances took the hit and on one, the cost was so great that my budget will never bounce back. I get a moment not unlike happiness though when I think of the unbelievably large debt I'll leave behind that will never be recoverable, because I have no family they can try and take from.
posted by evilDoug at 7:27 PM on March 11, 2023
posted by evilDoug at 7:27 PM on March 11, 2023
No, no, no, no and more no.
This is just a result is statistical illiteracy in news media. The PNAS article by both authors (penultimate link) did not actually say money and happiness are directly correlated and pretty much explicitly says both authors messed up in their analyses. Reading that article, it's very plain the two researchers do not disagree. The CBSNews author (final link) either failed to read past the abstract or failed to understand what the collaborative article was saying.
What the academic paper actually says is that both authors found similar effects, but due to the design of their analyses came to divergent conclusions. The paper both authors put out, which involved a re-analysis of their data, literally says:
> We have traced KD's overstatement of the flattening pattern and MK's failure to find it in his data to routine methodological practices which should perhaps be questioned more often.
Basically, the original 2010 paper (KD) was really measuring a decrease in unhappiness as income increased, which then hit a ceiling after a particular threshold. The more recent 2021 paper (MK) did not find this ceiling, but still had the assumption (as did KD) that money and happiness moved in tandem.
A re-analysis of MK's data did show a flattening effect, of a sort (fig 2 in the paper). Happiness did linearly increase with income, up to a point, after which people who were already happy got much happier faster, and people who were already unhappy barely showed any improvement after that same point.
So there really isn't any disagreement between the papers. KD showed that money can alleviate unhappiness, and MK shows the same thing. The MK data simply goes an extra step and shows that, after a certain point, the happiness dervied from money depends more on whether you were already a happy or sad person. The end result is that everyone gets more happy/less sad up until the point that money is no longer the driving factor of their happiness or sadness. After that, cheerful, well- adjusted people keep getting more insufferably happy, while depressed, miserable people hit a plateau where no amount of money is going change the shit they're going through.
Props to CBSNews for actually linking to the damn paper though.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:01 AM on March 12, 2023 [22 favorites]
This is just a result is statistical illiteracy in news media. The PNAS article by both authors (penultimate link) did not actually say money and happiness are directly correlated and pretty much explicitly says both authors messed up in their analyses. Reading that article, it's very plain the two researchers do not disagree. The CBSNews author (final link) either failed to read past the abstract or failed to understand what the collaborative article was saying.
What the academic paper actually says is that both authors found similar effects, but due to the design of their analyses came to divergent conclusions. The paper both authors put out, which involved a re-analysis of their data, literally says:
> We have traced KD's overstatement of the flattening pattern and MK's failure to find it in his data to routine methodological practices which should perhaps be questioned more often.
Basically, the original 2010 paper (KD) was really measuring a decrease in unhappiness as income increased, which then hit a ceiling after a particular threshold. The more recent 2021 paper (MK) did not find this ceiling, but still had the assumption (as did KD) that money and happiness moved in tandem.
A re-analysis of MK's data did show a flattening effect, of a sort (fig 2 in the paper). Happiness did linearly increase with income, up to a point, after which people who were already happy got much happier faster, and people who were already unhappy barely showed any improvement after that same point.
So there really isn't any disagreement between the papers. KD showed that money can alleviate unhappiness, and MK shows the same thing. The MK data simply goes an extra step and shows that, after a certain point, the happiness dervied from money depends more on whether you were already a happy or sad person. The end result is that everyone gets more happy/less sad up until the point that money is no longer the driving factor of their happiness or sadness. After that, cheerful, well- adjusted people keep getting more insufferably happy, while depressed, miserable people hit a plateau where no amount of money is going change the shit they're going through.
Props to CBSNews for actually linking to the damn paper though.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:01 AM on March 12, 2023 [22 favorites]
saving 200-250/year if they're trying hard to save but not being fanatical about it. They still have to go back to the office on Monday every week, medical problems can still bankrupt them and so on. A lot of the jobs here are high-stress/high-hours. And even at that (absurd) savings rate for an entire career it's not enough to get to $11M.
What? you need to check your math again. Saving $250k a year gets you to $11m in like 20 years, which is about 1/3 of a working career.
Medical expenses (especially end-of-life) are just plain infinite. No amount of money will keep you safe. No matter how much you have, it will ALL go away in one fell swoop.
No they are not. They can be expensive, but not infinite, not even close. In the dealings I have had (which is anecdotal of course), they are actually less than the expenses while young, insured, and working due to various federal medical care programs younger people are not allowed to use. To give a solid example, my FIL's 2 week stay in a hospital and my Aunt's brain surgery with a week stay in the hospital and 6 weeks in rehab actual out of pocket costs were only slightly more than my 2nd daughter's birth costs, where my wife spent 1 day in the hospital, and less than my leg surgery with 6 hours in the hospital.
Costs for nursing homes can be expensive, like $10k a month, but that's generally not a long term care cost, and generally it's not fully out of pocket.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:10 AM on March 12, 2023
What? you need to check your math again. Saving $250k a year gets you to $11m in like 20 years, which is about 1/3 of a working career.
Medical expenses (especially end-of-life) are just plain infinite. No amount of money will keep you safe. No matter how much you have, it will ALL go away in one fell swoop.
No they are not. They can be expensive, but not infinite, not even close. In the dealings I have had (which is anecdotal of course), they are actually less than the expenses while young, insured, and working due to various federal medical care programs younger people are not allowed to use. To give a solid example, my FIL's 2 week stay in a hospital and my Aunt's brain surgery with a week stay in the hospital and 6 weeks in rehab actual out of pocket costs were only slightly more than my 2nd daughter's birth costs, where my wife spent 1 day in the hospital, and less than my leg surgery with 6 hours in the hospital.
Costs for nursing homes can be expensive, like $10k a month, but that's generally not a long term care cost, and generally it's not fully out of pocket.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:10 AM on March 12, 2023
What? you need to check your math again. Saving $250k a year gets you to $11m in like 20 years, which is about 1/3 of a working career.
Maybe if you retire at 80. And the math is a little optimistic, especially when those FANG RSUs drop in value. If you take the lower contribution and a 7% real return, you end up with eight million, five of which you put in:
>>> sum([200_000 * (1 + .07)**n for n in range(20)])
8199098.464246231
Still a very good problem to have!
posted by pwnguin at 11:52 AM on March 12, 2023
Maybe if you retire at 80. And the math is a little optimistic, especially when those FANG RSUs drop in value. If you take the lower contribution and a 7% real return, you end up with eight million, five of which you put in:
>>> sum([200_000 * (1 + .07)**n for n in range(20)])
8199098.464246231
Still a very good problem to have!
posted by pwnguin at 11:52 AM on March 12, 2023
Around here, long-term care starts around ~$12K/mo. And it will be out of pocket until your money is completely gone, and then Medicaid kicks in because at that point you are, technically, completely impoverished. Medicare and any other health insurance you might have will pay for little to nothing unless there's some hope of "rehab."
Now, LTC is for end of life, but who wants to spend their last months, already sick, worried about whether their money is going to hold out, or they're going to get kicked over to some crappier facility that takes Medicaid?
posted by praemunire at 12:38 PM on March 12, 2023
Now, LTC is for end of life, but who wants to spend their last months, already sick, worried about whether their money is going to hold out, or they're going to get kicked over to some crappier facility that takes Medicaid?
posted by praemunire at 12:38 PM on March 12, 2023
What? you need to check your math again. Saving $250k a year gets you to $11m in like 20 years, which is about 1/3 of a working career.
Maybe if you retire at 80. And the math is a little optimistic, especially when those FANG RSUs drop in value. If you take the lower contribution and a 7% real return, you end up with eight million, five of which you put in
Yea I didn't specify enough here, I was more getting at the idea that a 1% salary won't get someone to 1% wealth. 25 years of investing $200k/year at 7% will get someone to $11M, but someone who started with $11M getting that same 7% return for 25 years will have $60M and they won't have had to go to work in the interim.
That's obviously still ignoring a lot, but starting out with wealth sure seems like it'd make a big difference in whether someone has to do things they'd rather avoid.
posted by ethand at 3:23 PM on March 12, 2023
Maybe if you retire at 80. And the math is a little optimistic, especially when those FANG RSUs drop in value. If you take the lower contribution and a 7% real return, you end up with eight million, five of which you put in
Yea I didn't specify enough here, I was more getting at the idea that a 1% salary won't get someone to 1% wealth. 25 years of investing $200k/year at 7% will get someone to $11M, but someone who started with $11M getting that same 7% return for 25 years will have $60M and they won't have had to go to work in the interim.
That's obviously still ignoring a lot, but starting out with wealth sure seems like it'd make a big difference in whether someone has to do things they'd rather avoid.
posted by ethand at 3:23 PM on March 12, 2023
while anything above that just feeds your sense of smug satisfaction of lording it over the other peasants.
Yeah that's exactly how I would describe the feeling I have at finally being able to provide material support to my impoverished parent in her twilight years. Just lording it over that peasant that I can pay for her to have some nice stuff in her old age, while SHE sometimes went hungry so her kids could eat, like a SUCKER! Jesus fucking tapdancing Christ do you even hear yourself.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 3:39 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yeah that's exactly how I would describe the feeling I have at finally being able to provide material support to my impoverished parent in her twilight years. Just lording it over that peasant that I can pay for her to have some nice stuff in her old age, while SHE sometimes went hungry so her kids could eat, like a SUCKER! Jesus fucking tapdancing Christ do you even hear yourself.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 3:39 PM on March 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
The_Vegetable, I don't even know where to start to discuss the many ways that medical care -- and I meant any, at any life stage -- is unbounded.
But let's turn it around: what's a good number I should have in the bank to make sure I don't go bankrupt from medical care?
(please do show your work)
posted by Dashy at 5:35 PM on March 12, 2023
But let's turn it around: what's a good number I should have in the bank to make sure I don't go bankrupt from medical care?
(please do show your work)
posted by Dashy at 5:35 PM on March 12, 2023
>>> sum([200_000 * (1 + .07)**n for n in range(20)])
8199098.464246231
2 things: I did choose 7%, and your math assumes that the investing stops at 20 years, but it doesn't work like that. If this person wanted their career to be 20 years (or less), fine, you are a 1%er. The money continues to grow, so you have to choose a higher number than 20. Unless I guess you are going to spend it all in year 20 and then start over.
Yea I didn't specify enough here, I was more getting at the idea that a 1% salary won't get someone to 1% wealth.
it does though, easily.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:05 AM on March 13, 2023
8199098.464246231
2 things: I did choose 7%, and your math assumes that the investing stops at 20 years, but it doesn't work like that. If this person wanted their career to be 20 years (or less), fine, you are a 1%er. The money continues to grow, so you have to choose a higher number than 20. Unless I guess you are going to spend it all in year 20 and then start over.
Yea I didn't specify enough here, I was more getting at the idea that a 1% salary won't get someone to 1% wealth.
it does though, easily.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:05 AM on March 13, 2023
But let's turn it around: what's a good number I should have in the bank to make sure I don't go bankrupt from medical care?
I don't know, but I know quite a few old people because I'm 45, and all my relatives are dying. And none have become destitute, even with severe problems. And I grew up in a poor rural area so I know lots of old people who struggled in life. I'm not saying they are all passing on giant fortunes, but they aren't selling plasma for cash. Even with severe health problems.
In fact, that's IMO why we haven't switched to public health care for younger people. Most people do ok with their insurance, especially middle class and beyond, and most people's medical expenses with older age are a sizable percentage of their relatively low incomes in old age, but not huge overall.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:12 AM on March 13, 2023
I don't know, but I know quite a few old people because I'm 45, and all my relatives are dying. And none have become destitute, even with severe problems. And I grew up in a poor rural area so I know lots of old people who struggled in life. I'm not saying they are all passing on giant fortunes, but they aren't selling plasma for cash. Even with severe health problems.
In fact, that's IMO why we haven't switched to public health care for younger people. Most people do ok with their insurance, especially middle class and beyond, and most people's medical expenses with older age are a sizable percentage of their relatively low incomes in old age, but not huge overall.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:12 AM on March 13, 2023
I would argue they don't do ok but tolerate a shitty system. Right off the top it costs them more. And then there is all the hassle of making sure the ambulance takes you to the right hospital, finding in network care, having to choose annually what sort of plan to go with, saving for costs not covered (like if I understand correctly childbirth FFS), and then dealing with the bills that seem to sprout like mushrooms after any procedure that even if they are nominally covered cost time and energy getting the companies to actually cover it.
I've talked to lots of upper middle class Americans who still think twice about visiting an ER for issues that are no brainer go to the hospital in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 12:33 PM on March 13, 2023
I've talked to lots of upper middle class Americans who still think twice about visiting an ER for issues that are no brainer go to the hospital in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 12:33 PM on March 13, 2023
I don't know, but I know quite a few old people because I'm 45, and all my relatives are dying. And none have become destitute, even with severe problems.
I'm 55 and have been watching my family and Mr Epigrams' family go through this with elderly relatives. We have not yet had any become destitute, but I am aware that 1. Mr Epigrams' father and my late father both made some smart and lucky financial moves AND benefited a lot from the GI Bill in starting their careers and 2. our families have been lucky AF. I don't think my experience is typical.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 1:11 PM on March 13, 2023
I'm 55 and have been watching my family and Mr Epigrams' family go through this with elderly relatives. We have not yet had any become destitute, but I am aware that 1. Mr Epigrams' father and my late father both made some smart and lucky financial moves AND benefited a lot from the GI Bill in starting their careers and 2. our families have been lucky AF. I don't think my experience is typical.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 1:11 PM on March 13, 2023
« Older Both kinds of music | The Battle for the Soul of Buy Nothing Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by phunniemee at 5:47 AM on March 11, 2023 [22 favorites]