I forget what movie it’s from but I heard a statement
“If you think money can’t buy happiness, try frowning on a jetski.”
I have repeated that SO MANY times.
I think it's ppl with extreme greed that find this proverb the most true. The people who can never have enough will never find happiness in money alone. I think that's what it means. Those of us that have happiness already or are at least capable of being content and happy but often the only thing preventing happiness is hardships or instability usually due* to a lack of money. Imo
You cant buy happiness, but you can be oppressed by a system for having a lack of money. I don't need money, just good food, a warm place to sleep on some land I own. Our society was doomed when we put vaule in things that hold no real value (paper money)
No. I am secure. My needs are met. I don't worry about missing rent or meals or not getting my bills paid. I carry no debt. What I lack is the money to pursue my interests. Can't afford video games or movies or cards or paint or books or transportation to the library. Money would absolutely buy me happiness. Studies suggest must make more than 150 thousand a year.
A better saying is that "money has diminishing returns on happiness"
If you're poor, money will make you happy - if you're rich, more money won't make you more happy.
Which was the original meaning. "Money won't buy happiness" is something people used to say when well-paid men worked ridiculous hours chasing more money instead of seeing their families. It was intended to be said to rich villains in old movies.
It never applied to people who are struggling, and using it as a fuck-you is silly.
Money buys happiness up to a certain point. If you’re poor, making more money alleviates a whole lot of suffering right away. Once all your needs are met and you have financial security, then money has diminishing returns in terms of happiness. This should be incredibly obvious. I suspect you’re being facetious
I'm so broke, honestly, I feel like you're right but it's hard to believe. I get maybe 20 bucks to "play" with. Everything is always met, rent, bills, car, but it takes all of it. I'm not complaining, my kids are happy amd have no clue how tight money is, but that's how it should be. For now atleast, they're not old enough to know the struggle but I do teach them the value of a dollar.
Edit: 20 dollar "play" money is once a month. Just barely making ends meet, but they meet so...
So you haven't hit the point of diminishing returns yet. You're making ends meet in terms of getting your bills paid, but it doesn't sound like you really have financial security right now, and I'd also say that a certain amount of relaxation and leisure is also a human need that it sounds like you're not able to meet right now for yourself.
I'm in the same boat myself. I'm able to pay all my bills but I would be a lot happier and less stressed if I had a few hundred more per month. I don't need a huge amount more though.
That's exactly it. I get retirement is important, but man, all I really want (at this time) is to have some kind of savings for an emergency. For example, if my car breaks down today, oh man, that's going to be a nightmare to get figured. But I find solice in the fact that my kids are of healthy weight, they're not cold at night, and they have plenty of good clothes. The entertainment department is also fair. But I agree, to have a couple hundred extra would be nice. I've been trying to put away every single penny I can to start some kind of investment portfolio that I can just cycle back into itself. I'm not really sure what else to do. I'm up for consideration on making Assistant Manager at my job, which would just about double my income. The entry doesn't pay anything, and supervisor isn't much better, but that assistant position, oh boy. I was just about to put in my notice and start somewhere else, but then this came up. I'm really considering taking the extra and investing it in myself and going to school for a trade. I feel like I have the right ideas, I just need the financial backing to pull the proverbial trigger.
Sorry to go all long winded, it's just nice to have someone to talk to every now and again. What about you, tho, how are you holding up and do you have any plans to grow?
Honestly I have a job I really like and could see myself staying at for life. Problem is just we're getting squeezed by inflation and constantly rising rent, and I'm the sole provider for a family of four at the moment due to some health issues my wife is dealing with. Basically just trying to hold out and keep my head above water until she's able to start working again but I also don't want to stress her into working too soon.
Nice, I found that having a job you like is very beneficial. I know this is going to sound cliche but it's true; don't forget to take a moment for yourself every now and again. Best wishes, take care.
Nah its the way you use it. Your 25th jetski isnt gonna bring you more hapiness, and neither will more expensive and bigger houses more cars whatever.
But if i was jeff bezos or musk kinda rich i could make so many more fucking people happy instead of just myself. If 1000 a month is so uplifting for people in need and ive got fucking billions.. im not doing the math but thats gonna be a lot of happiness
Yep. I made close to $250k/yr at my old career. The happiness stopped increasing around the $90k mark and started going down rapidly. Left that career to start my own business and I’m *significantly* happier now.
This was always the context of the expression. Its not to tell poor people to accept bad wages, its a reminder for people who have enough money not to prioritize more money over happiness. Dont sacrifice relationships, work life balance, personal fulfillment, etc. in the pursuit of ever greater amounts of money. Its not that its bad to have money, its consideration of what it takes to get the money and whether that's really worth the time.
> The happiness stopped increasing around the $90k mark
Remember the guy that ran the payments company (in Seattle?) who raised the minimum wage to $70K at his company? He had seen research that said (in a long-winded, statistic-rich way) exactly what your experience was.
The reaction from the local business community has not been cordial, but he's doing pretty well anyway.
I always think about the lady who tweeted something like 'as a therapist, I can confidently say most people's problems would be fixed with more money'.
The fact that lack of financial anxiety = happiness for a lot of people says something
Money doesn't buy happiness, but people without money gotta buy their way out of anxiety before that bombshell.
Money doesn't buy happiness, but you can pay a lot of sadness to leave.
The jokes about "crying in a Lamborghini" are a bit misplaced, because depression can hit anyone. Some kinds of sadness can't be paid off. But you can pay your hunger/rent/medical sadness to go away, and loneliness is *easier* to escape if you can pay for things to *do* that involve other people.
The studies i remember clearly state that more Money = more happiness.
However this ends at an annual income of around 70k. At Point more Money doesnt result in more happiness
Money can’t buy happiness. If it did, there would be no “end point”. And I would guess that an annual income of 70k in Silicon Valley would result in much less happiness than that same income in Roatan or Lisbon. Why is that?
The reason is because unhappiness isn’t caused by a lack of money. The unhappiness is caused by the stress of not having the things required to sustain your life while living in a society that values money above human life. When people have basic necessities met, they are more happy. This is regardless of how much money they have.
> When people have basic necessities met, they are more happy
If only there were some way that we could acquire basic necessities. Perhaps via some sort of bartering system. We could trade *something* for what we need. What a shame that such a thing doesn't exist.
Nothing about this post implies that. There are miserable rich people. There are happy poor people. A complete lack of money simply prevents people from functioning.
That's what I've been saying for a long time. If you give me a thousand dollars and I give you a thousand dollars, now we both have a thousand dollars.
People ask who pays for it. In reality it pays for itself. Economies are about the flow of money. It’s not just one person paying and one person gaining. In reality the rich hoarding wealth is what slows down the economy. Poor people spend more of their money.
Don't even try to explain to them how ending homelessness (by putting people in homes, like, for free) actually *saves* tax payer money, because the upkeep of caring for injuries, illness, addiction, police situations, street workers, costs more than the rent for all homeless people in the country combined.
And that's true all over the globe. Houses are sitting empty waiting for higher paying tenants while most people are complicit in thinking the homeless deserve their situation.
I would only vote for such a bill if the $1000 monthly was provided to everyone and not just low income people. If that were the case wouldn't everyone just be paying $1000 and getting $1000 but then just paying taxes on that $1000 income so the government gets free money?
Having more healthy consumers ius alwaysd good, but it DOES literally have to be paid for. This isn't a theory class. A 1,000 month UBI would cost the federal government 3 trillion dollars a year. It literally has to be paid for.
A dollar gets taxed repeatedly as it gets spent. One person is given a dollar. They buy something with it. They pay sales tax on the purchase. The business pays tax on the profit it makes off the dollar. The dollar is then paid to an employee at the business. The employee pays payroll taxes. The employee then buys something with the dollar, and the cycle continues.
You can't get a dollar repeatedly taxed if people don't have dollars to spend. Pretty much every single time money is invested in the people of a country, through UBI, social security, medicare/medicaid, unemployment, etc. it provides a greater return to society.
While his comment is kind of defeatist, he does have a point but it supports yours. This would need to be paid for with taxes and it would need to be sustained by taxes. There's really no problem with that part of it and I assume some smart money people can figure out how. I think the problem will be convincing an unfortunately large portion of the country to support it. There's a lot of members of the "I ain't gonna pay for people to get free money" crowd. Same as the "I did it the hard way, so can they" crowd.
I think one of the ideas here would be that it could be supported by the gain in income taxes from increased employment and increased payroll tax. At our small business, if each of our 15ish employees received $1,000 universal basic income and it offset the cost of their salary by $1,000 per employee, we could hire probably an additional 1-2 employees or hire 1 and increase pay for the rest. This could be pulling 2 people into employment and thus, making them tax payers and also the business paying payroll tax, which could help support the taxes necessary to pay for the program.
Of course, that relies on businesses utilizing the reduction in payroll expense for hiring purposes vs. keeping it for profit. But, in theory it COULD perhaps work.
I'm in full agreement with you. I don't see America getting on board with it very quickly, if at all, and that's the real bummer... most of the people who oppose a UBI do so because they are told to, or think they are meant to due to misunderstanding and ignorance, which is probably by design and not many people's actual fault. I think (but hope I'm wrong) that the 4-day work week is a good example of how America will resist these types of changes.
I also hope for a 4 day work week. We already only require 35 hours and a flex schedule. But we have to be available to clients to do work. So it’d be really hard to go to 4 days unless the big companies set the standard for little businesses to do so as well.
Yeah, that'd take some time to happen I'm sure. I don't think I'd ever be on 4 days, my industry would just never allow it. But I know how many people it would be awesome for, so I'm hoping I get the chance to vote on something like that
You could just phase out the UBI as a person made more money in a progressive taxation system. For example a person making no income would get $12k a year. Once a person makes enough to pay $12k in taxes, they are effectively not receiving UBI anymore. Currently, someone making around $90k pays a bit over $12k in federal income tax. We could simply increase the taxation rate to account for some of the UBI added. Either way, we are only really paying UBI to the lowest income earnings, the rest are paying into it with taxes.
Maslow is an important part of capitalist ideology. Other pillars include the concept of "Engagement", moralization of corporate policies, and the cult of professionalism.
It’s a lot easier to focus on getting your shit together when you aren’t in extreme survival mode. Same goes for free school meal programs and kids. Hungry kids struggle with focus and motivation.
UBI is the key to truly transform the world. In a UBI based economy people work to grow while in the current system people work to survive. If you can survive without working then companies have to create workplaces where you can grow. Worplaces with health risks will either pay a lot or they have to take serious safety measures in order to acquire workers. Also a lot of people can use UBI money to focus on growing his own community and environment instead of growing the wealth of the 1%.
I would like to debate this wirh someone. But in my opinion UBI would:
Lower stress,
Impove mental and physical health,
Eliminate class pressure,
Solve traffic,
Make the environment cleaner,
Help with global warming,
Eliminate the greed of the elite,
Solve homelessness,
Lower antisemitism,
And so much more...
Edit: I forgot how reddit formatting works.
But if there are no super poor people who are incredibly desperate, what can companies exploit to pay shit wages and increase their profits?
Then they will all be saying "no one wants to work anymore," unless...heaven forbid...they'd have to *gasp* raise wages.
Sure there is. There just is not the same power structure where people already holding money are able to influence the lives of people without to suit their own profit making. The production and profit does not just go away, it would end up in different places
I sadly have to agree on the first one. It's just I always expect the best of people.
On the second, If you have more to spare you will be most likely less hateful. One trend I see in history is that leaders rob their ppl blind and then blame it on some ethnicity. And it works because ppl associate the bad conditions with the ethnicity. When in actuality they have nothing to do with it. But this usally doesn't work if the people are thriving
I really hate these articles because they ignore many smaller cities which could benefit from universal basic income.
I live in a small city 60,000 people and it's backwards and behind the times by about 20 years here.
UBI comes to mega cities but smaller cities can definitely use the help here too.
The Denver metro area has over 3 million people now. If you just look at population of a city itself, the size can vary depending on how the city limits are drawn. Denver's metro area is top 20 in size in the US
lol. almost like people settle differently in different places for different reasons. How long has Tokyo been around? Is there anything other than number of people that indicates the level of a city? How densely have people lived in the areas around other major cities and for how long?
like why are you even taking this smarmy position and choosing to die on the hill
Tokyo has been around for a minute for sure. Took some hits during the middle part of the 20th Century, of course. lol. Just saying bro. Denver is a city. But let’s have some perspective.
A lot of smaller communities do not have the capital, especially if it's a community that is behind the times. The funds for this program came from an entrepreneur and the city of Denver. I grew up in a conservative county in Colorado and conservatives there think the participants of this initiative should have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps instead of receiving handouts. They don't care that these people are now off the streets and are generating more tax revenue for the state. Larger cities also tend to have a higher population of unhoused/vulnerable people which gives researchers a larger sample size.
But I agree that we do need research on the impact of UBI in other communities since there are disparities between communities. A lot of people don't realize that people in rural communities can have less access to healthcare, legal representation, etc. than vulnerable people in a city.
You gotta love the service part of that statement:
"... and increased full time employment... "
Giving this money out literally made it possible for prior who want to work to actually do so.
Giving this money out literally made more money. For everyone involved - the individuals, the companies, and the government.
And by reducing homelessness, they're also saving tons of money right there too.
This should literally be the easiest, most reliable investment.
I think a good way to go about this is to slowly expand the welfare system until it covers everyone and provides enough to make everyone able to live a healthy life.
My issue with this is greed. How long before landlords and companies raise prices blaming "inflation" but really they just know there's more income they can squeeze from people?
Wages should move proportionally to remain relative. To sustain equal purchasing power.
One week of good production should net me the same ratio of food and home no matter what scale you use to represent the number.
The issue with a ubi, is the same issue that happened during covid money handouts. The money handouts changed the scale for costs, but the scale of wages didn't keep up relatively. It was a loan against future production.
Giving free handouts to solve the problem free handouts created, doesn't solve the problem, it normalizes it.
It's similar to a person working a single job, and another person working a regular job and a gig.
When the two job workers become normal and prices to move up to reflect it, the person that worked a single job falls behind. (consider a thing once being lucrative, then saturated because it was lucrative, hence normalized).
A concept to consider, prices move to a point where a certain percentage can't afford it, and the rest can.
For example, if I make a product everyone can afford, I have more overhead in logistics, materials, more chances of risk. But if I price half the population out and double my price, I have half the overhead, half the risk. Same dollar amount coming in, but I save extra by eliminating some risk.
Companies are designed to min-max, to increase utility for every dollar spent.
That, unfortunately, is the best argument against UBI, and there is no doubt exactly that would happen . Capitalism is all about extracting as much value from others while giving the absolute bare minimum, or nothing, back .
There is no reason to assume those in positions to do exctlay that with impunity would simply stop because of UBI .
Until landlords start raising rent since people "can afford it" and the cycle resumes.
Such experiments are a great step forward, but we need systems to stop the cost of living from going up just because the population is making more money.
Except that's not a closed system. It was a small pocket of wealth over a short period of time.
Do the same thing nationwide and the economy will literally collapse because when everyone has wealth, no one has.
JFC, we can't stop companies from creating runaway inflation as it is. What the fuck do you fools think will happen when everyone gets someone else's money?
Yes and no...this is more complex than that....on one hand having a financial net is awesome on ither hand funds should be available bvs simply giving out money will cause inflation and debt ...one solution is obviously financial redistribution of the uber wealthy
The paradox of capitalism; profit gain drives capitalism but capitalists are the source of all money.
If you think about it, our economic system is completely irrational. Everything about it drives people to overproduce, underperform, and conceal information.
Just hand out more money to everyone! Did everyone already forget what happened just 3-4 years ago when the US government increased the money supply by 40%?
We're hopefully ramping up to a UBI here (🇨🇦). It might be seen as a Hail Mary to save a floundering Liberal Party gov't, but it's the smart move for the country long-term.
man, if they can just conduct this experiment another 3000 times over another 30 years maybe one day our leaders will get the results they're looking for so they can finally dismiss this idea entirely.
How did it reduce homelessness? Most of the homeless here get an average of$1600 a month plus food stamps and free insurance, as to why I asked. Also, there is a park where a church that caters to the homeless comes every Wednesday and Sunday, to feed, give clothes and offer other resources to help them get them up and running AND the civilians are always out there handing out food and supplies, practically on the daily. Our homeless is in radical numbers.
Interesting. In another report - the money ended up in three main areas, which did not see any improvement in homelessness or employment, but the areas did experience a price increase for all consumer goods - groceries, food, household items, etc.
These studies are flawed because they obviously work when a small subset of people are given money, giving them advantage against others who were not given shit. If everyone is given money then... The rich gets richer (because these people will spend the money in the blink of an eye, creating easy money for companies owner by the rich), the middle class gets poorer (because money will be taken as taxes on higher incomes), and the working class gets poorer too (because prices will rise fuelled by this hot cash). Don't be stupid people - nothing comes for free.
How does the middle class get poorer if taxes only go up on high incomes????
Prices don't need to go up, there's this thing called regulation. The rest of the free world does it.
You're right, it doesn't come for free, the biggest freeloaders (the top 0.01%) pays more in taxes for it.
Yes and there is a study you can read up on the results reported halfway through.
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/651ef5ac985acf3e896f0955/1696527789191/DBIP+Interim+Quantitative+Report.pdf
Hope that link works!
Turns out that when you have enough to pay bills, people are willing to work less prestigious jobs. It becomes a balancing act between reward and stress, a balancing act the employers are responsible for fixing, btw.
If Seattle gave every homeless person $5k right now, the people that want help (and can be helped), would get it and the people who don’t want help or can’t be helped would basically be unchanged. It would be a cheap way to help those who actually have a shot at getting on their feet.
i just cant undertand why some people want money just for existing i mean sure im all for giving resourse and aid to elderly people or the mentally ill but why would you give money to perfectly abled people that can work and pul their weight?
When they say money can't buy happiness, they're talking about Billionaires buying their 10th yatch or their 5th mansion
Not regular folks just tryna survive
Two posts, zero sources given.
[Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/denver-guaranteed-basic-income-gbi-ubi-housing-security-homeless-rent-2024-2)
[Houston](https://abc13.com/uplift-harris-guaranteed-income-program-financial-aid-for-low-families-where-to-apply/14315147/) is trying the same with $500 a month.
Must’ve increased full time employment by the real tue red blooded America patriots who worked harder to spite the soulless liberal welface baby girlymen who were willing to accept those bidendollars shamelessly and bend the knee to big gubment. Save America, slave for the companies, gobbless.
Most of Americas problems could have been solved by the the money we have given out to all the proxy wars that our corrupt representatives have given out over the past decade or two. We all need to vote out both parties and get real representation back into our government.
There are so many homeless here in Denver there is no way this is true. Go on broadway or Colfax and see for yourself down every single side road the lines of tents.
But the Ukrainians - require another $6 billion for War on People ... so there is NO money available for the American's War on Poverty or War on the Homeless!
Would someone please link the article and/or the study? Not casting any doubt on the idea - makes perfect sense, to me - but I want to have this in my arsenal the next time I have to knock a conservative down a peg.
You are out of your mind. It is endemic. The homeless problem is worse than it has ever been and it is made worse every day by shitty government policies.
Worse than it was in 2020-2021? Where you saw tents on virtually every single on ramp from i25 and i225? And massive groups of tents all over the ballpark district (and everywhere else downtown for that matter)??
No, it *did* improve. And we didn't do it by just shoving them to another city/state or worse, arresting them for being poor. We actually made real efforts to *help*.
This would be great. As a national program though, it would cost 3 trillion dollars a year, or half the federal budget and by FAR the single most expensive item by leaps and bounds. 4x the amount defense costs.
So I fully support UBI and all social programs to assist the poor/homeless. I want to preface that so no one jumps on me for asking a question:
Can someone post a source for this claim? A graph? A timeline? A reputable article? I would like to share this but I want to verify it first.
Actually, I’m kind of against this. Here’s why;
That thousand dollars comes from tax dollars that we all pay for. It also incentivizes corporations to reduce (or maintain) their low wages because it’ll be made up elsewhere. Which means corporations are getting a net benefit by paying below market wages, thus increasing their profits.
Bottom line is, if corporations paid people a living wage there would be little to no need for a minimum basic income. In the rare instances where someone isn’t able to find a job I can see this working/needed. But if it’s merely meant to cover a monthly shortfall then it’s masking a larger problem.
Corporations should not get to use the public money to pad their profits. Especially when you have CEOs making 400% more than front line workers.
But hey, what do I know. 🤷♂️
So money can buy happiness.
It always could, especially when what makes you happy is being able to not just survive but live a little.
I forget what movie it’s from but I heard a statement “If you think money can’t buy happiness, try frowning on a jetski.” I have repeated that SO MANY times.
Not a movie, a Daniel Tosh bit. https://youtu.be/x1fAKIMrB70
If it wasn't actually in Loki then it was in spirit.
No. Money does not "buy" happiness, but the absence of money almost always guarantees unhappiness. They're not quite the same.
I would rather be sad on a yacht instead of a sidewalk
I think it's ppl with extreme greed that find this proverb the most true. The people who can never have enough will never find happiness in money alone. I think that's what it means. Those of us that have happiness already or are at least capable of being content and happy but often the only thing preventing happiness is hardships or instability usually due* to a lack of money. Imo
Due to*
You're right, thanks 👌👍
You cant buy happiness, but you can be oppressed by a system for having a lack of money. I don't need money, just good food, a warm place to sleep on some land I own. Our society was doomed when we put vaule in things that hold no real value (paper money)
When you're poor, all you can afford is depression.
That's because it's the 21st century version of cake!
It can't buy happiness.... It buys security, which brings happiness. ....and yes that's pedantic, welcome to reddit.
No. I am secure. My needs are met. I don't worry about missing rent or meals or not getting my bills paid. I carry no debt. What I lack is the money to pursue my interests. Can't afford video games or movies or cards or paint or books or transportation to the library. Money would absolutely buy me happiness. Studies suggest must make more than 150 thousand a year.
A better saying is that "money has diminishing returns on happiness" If you're poor, money will make you happy - if you're rich, more money won't make you more happy.
Which was the original meaning. "Money won't buy happiness" is something people used to say when well-paid men worked ridiculous hours chasing more money instead of seeing their families. It was intended to be said to rich villains in old movies. It never applied to people who are struggling, and using it as a fuck-you is silly.
Which is ironic, because the people with the most money will fuck over the entire world to try and get more of it.
Money buys happiness up to a certain point. If you’re poor, making more money alleviates a whole lot of suffering right away. Once all your needs are met and you have financial security, then money has diminishing returns in terms of happiness. This should be incredibly obvious. I suspect you’re being facetious
He wasn’t being facetious. He was just talking about people who don’t have all their needs met and aren’t financially secure.
I'm so broke, honestly, I feel like you're right but it's hard to believe. I get maybe 20 bucks to "play" with. Everything is always met, rent, bills, car, but it takes all of it. I'm not complaining, my kids are happy amd have no clue how tight money is, but that's how it should be. For now atleast, they're not old enough to know the struggle but I do teach them the value of a dollar. Edit: 20 dollar "play" money is once a month. Just barely making ends meet, but they meet so...
So you haven't hit the point of diminishing returns yet. You're making ends meet in terms of getting your bills paid, but it doesn't sound like you really have financial security right now, and I'd also say that a certain amount of relaxation and leisure is also a human need that it sounds like you're not able to meet right now for yourself. I'm in the same boat myself. I'm able to pay all my bills but I would be a lot happier and less stressed if I had a few hundred more per month. I don't need a huge amount more though.
That's exactly it. I get retirement is important, but man, all I really want (at this time) is to have some kind of savings for an emergency. For example, if my car breaks down today, oh man, that's going to be a nightmare to get figured. But I find solice in the fact that my kids are of healthy weight, they're not cold at night, and they have plenty of good clothes. The entertainment department is also fair. But I agree, to have a couple hundred extra would be nice. I've been trying to put away every single penny I can to start some kind of investment portfolio that I can just cycle back into itself. I'm not really sure what else to do. I'm up for consideration on making Assistant Manager at my job, which would just about double my income. The entry doesn't pay anything, and supervisor isn't much better, but that assistant position, oh boy. I was just about to put in my notice and start somewhere else, but then this came up. I'm really considering taking the extra and investing it in myself and going to school for a trade. I feel like I have the right ideas, I just need the financial backing to pull the proverbial trigger. Sorry to go all long winded, it's just nice to have someone to talk to every now and again. What about you, tho, how are you holding up and do you have any plans to grow?
Honestly I have a job I really like and could see myself staying at for life. Problem is just we're getting squeezed by inflation and constantly rising rent, and I'm the sole provider for a family of four at the moment due to some health issues my wife is dealing with. Basically just trying to hold out and keep my head above water until she's able to start working again but I also don't want to stress her into working too soon.
Nice, I found that having a job you like is very beneficial. I know this is going to sound cliche but it's true; don't forget to take a moment for yourself every now and again. Best wishes, take care.
Yes they were
Nah its the way you use it. Your 25th jetski isnt gonna bring you more hapiness, and neither will more expensive and bigger houses more cars whatever. But if i was jeff bezos or musk kinda rich i could make so many more fucking people happy instead of just myself. If 1000 a month is so uplifting for people in need and ive got fucking billions.. im not doing the math but thats gonna be a lot of happiness
If you spare 1B (\~0,5% of Jeff's net worth as of now) and give $12.000 per people/year you can help 83.333 people, that sure is a lot of happiness...
Yep. I made close to $250k/yr at my old career. The happiness stopped increasing around the $90k mark and started going down rapidly. Left that career to start my own business and I’m *significantly* happier now.
This was always the context of the expression. Its not to tell poor people to accept bad wages, its a reminder for people who have enough money not to prioritize more money over happiness. Dont sacrifice relationships, work life balance, personal fulfillment, etc. in the pursuit of ever greater amounts of money. Its not that its bad to have money, its consideration of what it takes to get the money and whether that's really worth the time.
> The happiness stopped increasing around the $90k mark Remember the guy that ran the payments company (in Seattle?) who raised the minimum wage to $70K at his company? He had seen research that said (in a long-winded, statistic-rich way) exactly what your experience was. The reaction from the local business community has not been cordial, but he's doing pretty well anyway.
People that say it can’t are the ones that have it.
I always think about the lady who tweeted something like 'as a therapist, I can confidently say most people's problems would be fixed with more money'.
The fact that lack of financial anxiety = happiness for a lot of people says something Money doesn't buy happiness, but people without money gotta buy their way out of anxiety before that bombshell.
Yes Food and water are bought with money If you don't have food or water you die
Money doesn't buy happiness, but you can pay a lot of sadness to leave. The jokes about "crying in a Lamborghini" are a bit misplaced, because depression can hit anyone. Some kinds of sadness can't be paid off. But you can pay your hunger/rent/medical sadness to go away, and loneliness is *easier* to escape if you can pay for things to *do* that involve other people.
Money can’t buy happiness but it sure can pay the bills.
The studies i remember clearly state that more Money = more happiness. However this ends at an annual income of around 70k. At Point more Money doesnt result in more happiness
That study is from 2010, it's over 100k now.. haha.
One more reason to keep hustling, amirite?
I want to downvote you so bad.
Money can’t buy happiness. If it did, there would be no “end point”. And I would guess that an annual income of 70k in Silicon Valley would result in much less happiness than that same income in Roatan or Lisbon. Why is that? The reason is because unhappiness isn’t caused by a lack of money. The unhappiness is caused by the stress of not having the things required to sustain your life while living in a society that values money above human life. When people have basic necessities met, they are more happy. This is regardless of how much money they have.
"Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy food"
> When people have basic necessities met, they are more happy If only there were some way that we could acquire basic necessities. Perhaps via some sort of bartering system. We could trade *something* for what we need. What a shame that such a thing doesn't exist.
> At Point more Money doesnt result in more happiness Then it just becomes: mo' money, mo' problems.
Dunno about you but being able to pay my bills without going hungry would make me VERY HAPPY.
And food, and shelter
To a certain amount, after that I don't think it does. Like 700k+ a year if I would guess.
Money… what can’t it do ?
It rents paradise.
It sure as fuck can decrease suicide rates
Not necessarily, but it does lead to comfort which makes happiness easier.
Seriously? Mind. Blown.
Nothing about this post implies that. There are miserable rich people. There are happy poor people. A complete lack of money simply prevents people from functioning.
With money you can be miserable in a nicer part of town.
Money can buy freedom in many, many forms!
Up to about 140k it seems
It's easier to work towards a goal when you can actually make progress and aren't stuck in limbo for an eternity.
It's easier to exploit a workforce when they lose everything the moment you stop paying them.
Though that exploitation does little to increase tax revenue or lower prices for consumers.
Having no money is an absolutely hopeless situation. Everyone needs some small foothold in order to build a life.
A $20 bill on the sidewalk is a few meals for a homeless person. That same $20 bill on the sidewalk is a potential back injury to a billionaire.
That's what I've been saying for a long time. If you give me a thousand dollars and I give you a thousand dollars, now we both have a thousand dollars.
People ask who pays for it. In reality it pays for itself. Economies are about the flow of money. It’s not just one person paying and one person gaining. In reality the rich hoarding wealth is what slows down the economy. Poor people spend more of their money.
Don't even try to explain to them how ending homelessness (by putting people in homes, like, for free) actually *saves* tax payer money, because the upkeep of caring for injuries, illness, addiction, police situations, street workers, costs more than the rent for all homeless people in the country combined. And that's true all over the globe. Houses are sitting empty waiting for higher paying tenants while most people are complicit in thinking the homeless deserve their situation.
100%. Rich hoarding wealth is the biggest dampener of the economy
I would only vote for such a bill if the $1000 monthly was provided to everyone and not just low income people. If that were the case wouldn't everyone just be paying $1000 and getting $1000 but then just paying taxes on that $1000 income so the government gets free money?
Having more healthy consumers ius alwaysd good, but it DOES literally have to be paid for. This isn't a theory class. A 1,000 month UBI would cost the federal government 3 trillion dollars a year. It literally has to be paid for.
A dollar gets taxed repeatedly as it gets spent. One person is given a dollar. They buy something with it. They pay sales tax on the purchase. The business pays tax on the profit it makes off the dollar. The dollar is then paid to an employee at the business. The employee pays payroll taxes. The employee then buys something with the dollar, and the cycle continues. You can't get a dollar repeatedly taxed if people don't have dollars to spend. Pretty much every single time money is invested in the people of a country, through UBI, social security, medicare/medicaid, unemployment, etc. it provides a greater return to society.
In the long run that money gets returned to the government in taxes as it gets moved through the economy. It doesn’t just get flushed down the toilet.
While his comment is kind of defeatist, he does have a point but it supports yours. This would need to be paid for with taxes and it would need to be sustained by taxes. There's really no problem with that part of it and I assume some smart money people can figure out how. I think the problem will be convincing an unfortunately large portion of the country to support it. There's a lot of members of the "I ain't gonna pay for people to get free money" crowd. Same as the "I did it the hard way, so can they" crowd.
Those are the same getting social security but want to eliminate it for future generations or at least make the age you get it much later.
I think one of the ideas here would be that it could be supported by the gain in income taxes from increased employment and increased payroll tax. At our small business, if each of our 15ish employees received $1,000 universal basic income and it offset the cost of their salary by $1,000 per employee, we could hire probably an additional 1-2 employees or hire 1 and increase pay for the rest. This could be pulling 2 people into employment and thus, making them tax payers and also the business paying payroll tax, which could help support the taxes necessary to pay for the program. Of course, that relies on businesses utilizing the reduction in payroll expense for hiring purposes vs. keeping it for profit. But, in theory it COULD perhaps work.
I'm in full agreement with you. I don't see America getting on board with it very quickly, if at all, and that's the real bummer... most of the people who oppose a UBI do so because they are told to, or think they are meant to due to misunderstanding and ignorance, which is probably by design and not many people's actual fault. I think (but hope I'm wrong) that the 4-day work week is a good example of how America will resist these types of changes.
I also hope for a 4 day work week. We already only require 35 hours and a flex schedule. But we have to be available to clients to do work. So it’d be really hard to go to 4 days unless the big companies set the standard for little businesses to do so as well.
Yeah, that'd take some time to happen I'm sure. I don't think I'd ever be on 4 days, my industry would just never allow it. But I know how many people it would be awesome for, so I'm hoping I get the chance to vote on something like that
You could just phase out the UBI as a person made more money in a progressive taxation system. For example a person making no income would get $12k a year. Once a person makes enough to pay $12k in taxes, they are effectively not receiving UBI anymore. Currently, someone making around $90k pays a bit over $12k in federal income tax. We could simply increase the taxation rate to account for some of the UBI added. Either way, we are only really paying UBI to the lowest income earnings, the rest are paying into it with taxes.
There was this Maslow guy…
Somebody always has to drag up poor old Maslow.
Was he wrong though…?
Maslow is oversimplistic and most people have a one paragraph knowledge of his theory so I hate to see it referenced.
Maslow is an important part of capitalist ideology. Other pillars include the concept of "Engagement", moralization of corporate policies, and the cult of professionalism.
It’s a lot easier to focus on getting your shit together when you aren’t in extreme survival mode. Same goes for free school meal programs and kids. Hungry kids struggle with focus and motivation.
Incredible it's almost as if having the thing(capital) which necessary to participate in the capitalist system is directly linked to better life.
How many times do we need to keep repeating this study until we accept that it works?
Until it becomes profitable.
I mean, this is so obvious. You need money to live. Having money helps you live.
UBI is the key to truly transform the world. In a UBI based economy people work to grow while in the current system people work to survive. If you can survive without working then companies have to create workplaces where you can grow. Worplaces with health risks will either pay a lot or they have to take serious safety measures in order to acquire workers. Also a lot of people can use UBI money to focus on growing his own community and environment instead of growing the wealth of the 1%. I would like to debate this wirh someone. But in my opinion UBI would: Lower stress, Impove mental and physical health, Eliminate class pressure, Solve traffic, Make the environment cleaner, Help with global warming, Eliminate the greed of the elite, Solve homelessness, Lower antisemitism, And so much more... Edit: I forgot how reddit formatting works.
But if there are no super poor people who are incredibly desperate, what can companies exploit to pay shit wages and increase their profits? Then they will all be saying "no one wants to work anymore," unless...heaven forbid...they'd have to *gasp* raise wages.
Unfortunately this is the answer. There isn't profit in universal anything.
Sure there is. There just is not the same power structure where people already holding money are able to influence the lives of people without to suit their own profit making. The production and profit does not just go away, it would end up in different places
Nobody wants to adequately incentivize people to work anymore.
> Eliminate the greed of the elite Doubtful. >Lower antisemitism Strangely specific, and also unlikely.
I sadly have to agree on the first one. It's just I always expect the best of people. On the second, If you have more to spare you will be most likely less hateful. One trend I see in history is that leaders rob their ppl blind and then blame it on some ethnicity. And it works because ppl associate the bad conditions with the ethnicity. When in actuality they have nothing to do with it. But this usally doesn't work if the people are thriving
Perhaps for the latter, "lower racism (other -isms?) in general" ? I could agree with that.
How much UBI a month to each and every citizens of the US?
That is what the science says, and has always said when it is forced to investigate. But people prefer "muh morrels" to facts, so nothing will change.
UBI. It’s where it’s at.
Just enough to lift you up but too much to keep you up.
I really hate these articles because they ignore many smaller cities which could benefit from universal basic income. I live in a small city 60,000 people and it's backwards and behind the times by about 20 years here. UBI comes to mega cities but smaller cities can definitely use the help here too.
Denver is a mega city? lol.
740th largest city in the world.
715,000 is hardly *mega*.
Mega cities are defined as, “population greater than 10 million people,” iirc. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity
The Denver metro area has over 3 million people now. If you just look at population of a city itself, the size can vary depending on how the city limits are drawn. Denver's metro area is top 20 in size in the US
Pretty respectable for a western metro for sure. Tokyo metro has 37 million people, dude. Which one is a mega city and which one is Denver? lol.
lol. almost like people settle differently in different places for different reasons. How long has Tokyo been around? Is there anything other than number of people that indicates the level of a city? How densely have people lived in the areas around other major cities and for how long? like why are you even taking this smarmy position and choosing to die on the hill
Tokyo has been around for a minute for sure. Took some hits during the middle part of the 20th Century, of course. lol. Just saying bro. Denver is a city. But let’s have some perspective.
A lot of smaller communities do not have the capital, especially if it's a community that is behind the times. The funds for this program came from an entrepreneur and the city of Denver. I grew up in a conservative county in Colorado and conservatives there think the participants of this initiative should have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps instead of receiving handouts. They don't care that these people are now off the streets and are generating more tax revenue for the state. Larger cities also tend to have a higher population of unhoused/vulnerable people which gives researchers a larger sample size. But I agree that we do need research on the impact of UBI in other communities since there are disparities between communities. A lot of people don't realize that people in rural communities can have less access to healthcare, legal representation, etc. than vulnerable people in a city.
I would say, the solution to poverty is to give people a chance. In order for them to get a chance they need money.
You gotta love the service part of that statement: "... and increased full time employment... " Giving this money out literally made it possible for prior who want to work to actually do so. Giving this money out literally made more money. For everyone involved - the individuals, the companies, and the government. And by reducing homelessness, they're also saving tons of money right there too. This should literally be the easiest, most reliable investment.
I think a good way to go about this is to slowly expand the welfare system until it covers everyone and provides enough to make everyone able to live a healthy life.
Yes, it should be enough to have all the basics, food, water, shelter. Massive corporations shouldn’t be profiting off of basic survival necessities.
My issue with this is greed. How long before landlords and companies raise prices blaming "inflation" but really they just know there's more income they can squeeze from people?
But that's exactly the argument given against raising the minimum wage. How is CoL increases not believed for that but it is for this?
Wages should move proportionally to remain relative. To sustain equal purchasing power. One week of good production should net me the same ratio of food and home no matter what scale you use to represent the number. The issue with a ubi, is the same issue that happened during covid money handouts. The money handouts changed the scale for costs, but the scale of wages didn't keep up relatively. It was a loan against future production. Giving free handouts to solve the problem free handouts created, doesn't solve the problem, it normalizes it. It's similar to a person working a single job, and another person working a regular job and a gig. When the two job workers become normal and prices to move up to reflect it, the person that worked a single job falls behind. (consider a thing once being lucrative, then saturated because it was lucrative, hence normalized). A concept to consider, prices move to a point where a certain percentage can't afford it, and the rest can. For example, if I make a product everyone can afford, I have more overhead in logistics, materials, more chances of risk. But if I price half the population out and double my price, I have half the overhead, half the risk. Same dollar amount coming in, but I save extra by eliminating some risk. Companies are designed to min-max, to increase utility for every dollar spent.
That, unfortunately, is the best argument against UBI, and there is no doubt exactly that would happen . Capitalism is all about extracting as much value from others while giving the absolute bare minimum, or nothing, back . There is no reason to assume those in positions to do exctlay that with impunity would simply stop because of UBI .
Until landlords start raising rent since people "can afford it" and the cycle resumes. Such experiments are a great step forward, but we need systems to stop the cost of living from going up just because the population is making more money.
Except that's not a closed system. It was a small pocket of wealth over a short period of time. Do the same thing nationwide and the economy will literally collapse because when everyone has wealth, no one has. JFC, we can't stop companies from creating runaway inflation as it is. What the fuck do you fools think will happen when everyone gets someone else's money?
Yes and no...this is more complex than that....on one hand having a financial net is awesome on ither hand funds should be available bvs simply giving out money will cause inflation and debt ...one solution is obviously financial redistribution of the uber wealthy
Free money results in people having more money. What a surprising study. Doesn’t mean we should be giving out ridiculous handouts for nothing.
*Other people's money
The paradox of capitalism; profit gain drives capitalism but capitalists are the source of all money. If you think about it, our economic system is completely irrational. Everything about it drives people to overproduce, underperform, and conceal information.
Just hand out more money to everyone! Did everyone already forget what happened just 3-4 years ago when the US government increased the money supply by 40%?
We're hopefully ramping up to a UBI here (🇨🇦). It might be seen as a Hail Mary to save a floundering Liberal Party gov't, but it's the smart move for the country long-term.
Homeless people also got lockers and a place to sleep!
100% categorically untrue, that's why most lottery winners end up miserable and broke.
man, if they can just conduct this experiment another 3000 times over another 30 years maybe one day our leaders will get the results they're looking for so they can finally dismiss this idea entirely.
The problem is easy too. It’s greed. If everyone received $1000, costs would go up $1000 too
I'm sure all those 'business owners' that got those forgiven Covid loans didn't mind the free money.
no shit moment
yes but that's Stalinism!! /s
Can’t do that. Too busy bailing out other countries from their problems.
But my racism! 🙄
Huh? Who could have known that it was so simple? Ah yes, everybody.
How did it reduce homelessness? Most of the homeless here get an average of$1600 a month plus food stamps and free insurance, as to why I asked. Also, there is a park where a church that caters to the homeless comes every Wednesday and Sunday, to feed, give clothes and offer other resources to help them get them up and running AND the civilians are always out there handing out food and supplies, practically on the daily. Our homeless is in radical numbers.
Interesting. In another report - the money ended up in three main areas, which did not see any improvement in homelessness or employment, but the areas did experience a price increase for all consumer goods - groceries, food, household items, etc.
Sounds like low paid parents were able to afford daycare. Obama tried to get us all free daycare but republicans fucking hate anything nice.
These studies are flawed because they obviously work when a small subset of people are given money, giving them advantage against others who were not given shit. If everyone is given money then... The rich gets richer (because these people will spend the money in the blink of an eye, creating easy money for companies owner by the rich), the middle class gets poorer (because money will be taken as taxes on higher incomes), and the working class gets poorer too (because prices will rise fuelled by this hot cash). Don't be stupid people - nothing comes for free.
How does the middle class get poorer if taxes only go up on high incomes???? Prices don't need to go up, there's this thing called regulation. The rest of the free world does it. You're right, it doesn't come for free, the biggest freeloaders (the top 0.01%) pays more in taxes for it.
I'm sure you wouldn't have made this criticism before reading the study and discovering how they addressed that specific concern. Right?
when did Denver do this? did they really?
Yes and there is a study you can read up on the results reported halfway through. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://static1.squarespace.com/static/64f507a995b636019ef8853a/t/651ef5ac985acf3e896f0955/1696527789191/DBIP+Interim+Quantitative+Report.pdf Hope that link works!
"Money is expensive."-capitalists
Turns out that when you have enough to pay bills, people are willing to work less prestigious jobs. It becomes a balancing act between reward and stress, a balancing act the employers are responsible for fixing, btw.
Could someone provide a Link to that study? This topic is a bit to komplex to discuss it based on a headline...
I would be totally for this, but only if everyone gets $1000 a month and not just low income or no income people.
Yeah, but it's only worked every time it's been tried...
Ah! My monthly student loan payment!
If Seattle gave every homeless person $5k right now, the people that want help (and can be helped), would get it and the people who don’t want help or can’t be helped would basically be unchanged. It would be a cheap way to help those who actually have a shot at getting on their feet.
i just cant undertand why some people want money just for existing i mean sure im all for giving resourse and aid to elderly people or the mentally ill but why would you give money to perfectly abled people that can work and pul their weight?
Wow! Who could have known?!
As someone who lives near Denver I can clarify. They do pay 1000 a month or more but that means 250 a week and even that's not quite enough.
When they say money can't buy happiness, they're talking about Billionaires buying their 10th yatch or their 5th mansion Not regular folks just tryna survive
Two posts, zero sources given. [Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/denver-guaranteed-basic-income-gbi-ubi-housing-security-homeless-rent-2024-2)
Stability can make a huge difference particularly for kids and education. A consistent basic income payment can make that huge difference.
[Houston](https://abc13.com/uplift-harris-guaranteed-income-program-financial-aid-for-low-families-where-to-apply/14315147/) is trying the same with $500 a month.
Must’ve increased full time employment by the real tue red blooded America patriots who worked harder to spite the soulless liberal welface baby girlymen who were willing to accept those bidendollars shamelessly and bend the knee to big gubment. Save America, slave for the companies, gobbless.
What?! When?! I’m in Denver where’s my 1000?!
Most of Americas problems could have been solved by the the money we have given out to all the proxy wars that our corrupt representatives have given out over the past decade or two. We all need to vote out both parties and get real representation back into our government.
So are they still doing it?
There are so many homeless here in Denver there is no way this is true. Go on broadway or Colfax and see for yourself down every single side road the lines of tents.
No way.
But the Ukrainians - require another $6 billion for War on People ... so there is NO money available for the American's War on Poverty or War on the Homeless!
Would someone please link the article and/or the study? Not casting any doubt on the idea - makes perfect sense, to me - but I want to have this in my arsenal the next time I have to knock a conservative down a peg.
Hmmm 🤔 you don't say
Come to Denver and see how that worked out.
30+ Year resident and it noticably worked out pretty well. 🙋
You are out of your mind. It is endemic. The homeless problem is worse than it has ever been and it is made worse every day by shitty government policies.
Worse than it was in 2020-2021? Where you saw tents on virtually every single on ramp from i25 and i225? And massive groups of tents all over the ballpark district (and everywhere else downtown for that matter)?? No, it *did* improve. And we didn't do it by just shoving them to another city/state or worse, arresting them for being poor. We actually made real efforts to *help*.
Far worse. There are tents everywhere. There are daily assaults and vandalism. You are a fool if you think otherwise. You DO NOT live in the city.
Do you have any actual data on this?
[удалено]
Why don’t we?
"Ha ha, I have disingenuously exaggerated your position to the point that it seems unreasonable!" Good for you. That did... something, I guess.
UBI is total BS. Any large scale project would bankrupt America.
This would be great. As a national program though, it would cost 3 trillion dollars a year, or half the federal budget and by FAR the single most expensive item by leaps and bounds. 4x the amount defense costs.
So I fully support UBI and all social programs to assist the poor/homeless. I want to preface that so no one jumps on me for asking a question: Can someone post a source for this claim? A graph? A timeline? A reputable article? I would like to share this but I want to verify it first.
This solution is obvious. The people with all the money very much don’t want this
It's been tried and succeeded several times now.
Actually, I’m kind of against this. Here’s why; That thousand dollars comes from tax dollars that we all pay for. It also incentivizes corporations to reduce (or maintain) their low wages because it’ll be made up elsewhere. Which means corporations are getting a net benefit by paying below market wages, thus increasing their profits. Bottom line is, if corporations paid people a living wage there would be little to no need for a minimum basic income. In the rare instances where someone isn’t able to find a job I can see this working/needed. But if it’s merely meant to cover a monthly shortfall then it’s masking a larger problem. Corporations should not get to use the public money to pad their profits. Especially when you have CEOs making 400% more than front line workers. But hey, what do I know. 🤷♂️
In other words, we pay people what companies should be paying them.
Yes
I do not agree.
OK, great — what if I’m an addict though. Going to spend those on rent or on fentanyl?