How You Know if the People in Life Are Good People

Last updated: March 2016.

Full reading fourth dimension: fifteen minutes.

Introduction

Information technology'southward a cliché that "you can't buy happiness", but at the same fourth dimension, financial security is amid well-nigh people'southward tiptop career priorities.¹ Moreover, when people are asked what would nigh better the quality of their lives, the almost mutual answer is more money.^two What'southward going on hither? Who is right?

A lot of the research on this question is of remarkably low quality. But there take been some recent major studies in economics that allow u.s. to brand progress. In particular, we now finally have survey information from hundreds of thousands of people all around the world. We've sifted through the all-time studies available to figure out what'due south really going on. The truth seems to lie in the heart: money does make you happy, just simply a little. And this has many important implications about trade-offs yous face in your life and career.

Summary of principal points

• Contempo surveys of hundreds of thousands of people, in over 150 countries, show that richer people report being more than satisfied with their lives overall, only that the richer you get, the more coin you demand to increase your satisfaction further. This is because people spend money on the most important things first. Someone earning $100,000 per year is merely a little more satisfied than someone earning $50,000. The all-time bachelor study institute that each doubling of your income correlated with a life satisfaction 0.5 points college on a scale of 1 to 10.
• If you look at how 'happy' people say they are correct now, the relationship is weaker. Ane big study found people in countries with average incomes of $32,000 were only x% happier with their lives than those in countries with average incomes of only $2,000; another within the United states of america could notice no effect to a higher place a $40,000 income for a single person.
• Moreover, some and maybe even near of this relationship is non causal. For example, healthier people will be both happier and capable of earning more. This means the effect of gaining extra money on your happiness is weaker than the above correlations suggest. Unfortunately, how much of the above relationships are caused by coin making people happier is still not known with confidence.
• One time y'all become to an individual income of around $40,000, other factors, such as health, relationships and a sense of purpose, seem far more important than income. Then our recommendation is not to focus on earning more than than this (insofar as you want to become happy, anyhow).
• However, you lot may proceeds from earning more than that if: you have dependents, yous intendance near money more than than other people, or you live in an surface area with an unusually loftier price of living.
• Giving money to someone living on $1,000 per year in the developing earth will practice far more to improve their lives than giving the same amount to someone earning $25,000. The correlations above suggest that it volition be about 25 times more valuable. If you want to aid people, this is a major reason to focus on international poverty rather than helping the relatively poor in richer countries.
• Giving some money to charity is unlikely to brand you less happy, and may well make y'all happier.

Are richer people more than satisfied with their lives?

Thinking about information technology for a moment, you'd await that the richer you are, the more extra money you need to further increment your happiness.

If you're earning $10,000 a twelvemonth, and you lot get an extra $1,000, you're probably going to use it on something pretty important, similar making rent, which will brand a big difference to your happiness. But if you lot're earning $100,000 per year, you'll hardly find an extra $1,000. Maybe you'll just use information technology to consume out a bit more. In other words, yous'd wait the human relationship to be diminishing. If you lot depict out a graph of income against happiness, information technology'll look a fleck like the graph beneath. This is what every economist, philosopher and psychologist who works on this topic expects to meet.

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

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

The interesting question is how fast that happens. It may exist that at heart-class incomes extra money withal makes you significantly happier. Or perhaps subsequently that point extra income has no discernible touch on at all.

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

"All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?: 1 (dissatisfied) – 10 (very satisfied)."

In the 70s and 80s, it was widely thought by psychologists that after a sure betoken, there was no relationship between income and life satisfaction, at to the lowest degree in wealthier countries.

Today, larger and more rigorous studies haven't borne out that outcome. As yous get richer, you need a lot more money to brand y'all more satisfied, but there's no maximum level of income beyond which more than seems to contribute nothing.

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

Prototype source.

Every bit you can run into, this survey found a clear straight-line human relationship between income and happiness both within and between countries. The lines are straight rather than curved considering each increment on the bottom of the centrality indicates a doubling of income.

Roughly, what this means is that if you lot double your income, you gain about half a bespeak on a scale of i to 10 of life satisfaction. More than precisely, this is a chosen a logarithmic relationship.

Notation that this is just an association at this signal – we talk over whether college income is actually causing people to get more satisfied beneath.

According to this survey data, a typical person with a household income of $2,000 rates their life satisfaction at around 4.two out of 10. A typical person with a household income of $64,000 rates their life satisfaction at seven.2 out of 10.³

In the past, with just inconsistent polls available in a pocket-size number of countries, this relationship was much less clear, causing researchers to think there was no relationship between satisfaction and income. For more on the controversy nigh this today you can skip to Appendix I.

OK, but are richer people happier?

In that location'south more bear witness for a maximum useful level of income if instead of asking people how their life is going overall, we ask them how they feel right now or felt yesterday.

For case, this study by Nobel prize winners Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton, relied on a phone poll that asked hundreds of thousands of Americans how they felt in the following ways:⁴

• Positive affect – "were y'all happy yesterday?"
• Low stress – "did you experience stressed yesterday?"
• Not blue – "did you feel lamentable yesterday?"
• Ladder – "how satisfied are y'all with your life overall?"

Here'southward the result:

Once more, the scale at the bottom doubles with each increase.

You tin can see that the "ladder" of life satisfaction is roughly direct all the way up, merely as we found before.

Nonetheless, the other three lines get-go to flatten around $50,000, and are completely flat by $75,000. This means that extra income had no relationship with how happy, sorry and stressed people felt later this point.

Moreover, note that this is $fifty-75,000 of household income. That'due south equivalent to an individual income of more like $26-twoscore,000 if you're single and non supporting kids.⁵

Non all studies find that money stops having whatever impact. For example, another enormous data assay past Daniel Sacks, Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson establish that happiness connected to improve in countries with higher incomes – or at to the lowest degree there was no clear levelling off (run into figure below).^{half dozen}

People in richer countries were more than probable to remember feeling 'enjoyment' or honey yesterday, and less likely to experience 'depression', or 'physical hurting' despite being older (see the figure below).

People in richer countries were also a bit more likely to study being consistently treated with respect, having skillful tasting food, smiling or laughing a lot, and being free to choose how they spend their time (come across the figure below).^seven

But but scanning the information you tin come across that these associations, while real, are quite weak considering the enormous range of income beyond the sample. Raising income 16-fold, from $2,000 to $32,000, moved reported happiness from 3.0/4 to 3.3/four.⁸ A 64-fold increase in income, from $500 to $32,000, increased the probability of recalling feeling enjoyment or eating tasty food yesterday from effectually lx% to fourscore%. A 64-fold increment in income only raised the likelihood of feeling 'love' yesterday from 63% to 73%. Much of our everyday homo experiences are just not affected much by money. In other words:

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

What can make sense of these results?

We guess the key factor is the one we noted at the offset – you have the best opportunities to invest in your happiness offset, so equally you lot get more money, it becomes harder and harder to buy more happiness. Eventually the event of boosted income of happiness becomes negligible relative to other factors.

At that place could exist other reasons for a weak relationship. For instance, ane manner to earn more than money is to work longer hours in a task few other people want to do. Possibly the unhappiness caused past these actress hours at piece of work offsets any you proceeds from the extra income. It'southward a example of mo' money, mo' problems.

There'due south some evidence for this thought. This meta-analysis of over 100 studies institute only a very weak relationship between pay and chore satisfaction.¹⁰ Some kinds of jobs are low-paying precisely because they are satisfying. For example, if teaching weren't fulfilling, salaries would have to be higher to convince enough people to become teachers.

Some other gene is that we readily adapt to having more money. If you lot only have champagne in one case a year, it's a special occasion. Only to quote more Biggie, if "we sip champagne when we thirst-ay", it'due south no big deal. This is called the "hedonic treadmill". This is specially true when we spend money on cloth goods, similar fancy clothes, which we quickly go used to.¹¹ Moreover, we persistently underestimate how much we can adapt, so expect money to matter more than it does.¹²

However, there are some things we tin can't adapt to, which explains why in that location remains some relationship between income and happiness even among the rich. I example is that long commutes brand people unhappy – and they never get used to them (see the figure below).¹³ More coin tin also help you have more than interesting, varied experiences and relationships, which are important too.^eleven

Epitome source.

How come life satisfaction seems to increase more steeply with income than day-to-day happiness? Here's a probable caption. If someone asks you whether you are in physical pain, it's easy to check and give a meaningful reply. Only if someone asks you on the phone how satisfied you are with your life, all things considered, on a scale of 1 to ten… it can exist difficult to say. As you don't really know how satisfied you lot are on average, and yous take to answer rapidly, people are inclined to substitute in its place a related question that is easier to answer. A natural option is 'how much money am I making relative to others?', or 'how well is my career going?'. This widely observed phenomenon is called attribute exchange by psychologists.

In this respect feel sampling is superior because it avoids a range of possible biases in people'southward perception and recollection of their life.¹⁴ Nonetheless, life satisfaction passes several tests for being a good psychological mensurate (for example, it is stable over time and predicts hereafter behaviour) so shouldn't be disregarded.^fifteen

So would making more money brand yous happier?

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

Nosotros should annotation that nosotros take focused on establishing the magnitude of the human relationship between subjective well-being and income, rather than disentangling causality from correlation. The causal bear upon of income on individual or national subjective well-existence, and the mechanisms by which income raises subjective well-existence, remain open and important questions.

It could be that in that location'south another factor that causes both happiness and income. If this is true, boosting your income won't heave your happiness. For instance, possibly healthier people are both happier and able to earn more because they take more free energy. Or maybe happiness increases your income because happier people make better colleagues.

If these other connections exist, and they probably do, making an endeavour to earn more coin won't increment your happiness as much equally you'd hope from the in a higher place correlations alone.

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

And the relationship in a higher place was already pretty weak: If you already earn over $xl,000, then you need to gain an actress $40,000 per year but to gain 0.five on a ten point scale of life satisfaction. You can expect footling if whatever noticeable effect on twenty-four hours-to-solar day happiness, stress or sadness. That'south a lot of income for a express gain.

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

So, what about lottery winners? When people write near income and happiness they always mention this written report that supposedly shows lottery winners were no happier a year or two afterwards winning. This would be skilful evidence that there's almost no relationship betwixt income and happiness, fifty-fifty if you lot could become the money without having to do any extra work.

However, we went and read the original study, and found that actually the lottery winners were happier – they reported their happiness as 4 (out of half-dozen) compared to 3.82 for the control group.^sixteen

But the real problem is that the written report had a tiny sample: there were only 22 winners. This was and then minor – and the control grouping and then inappropriately selected – that the authors themselves didn't believe they had yet discovered much. Unfortunately, the story was too skilful for people to carp fact checking.

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

Newer studies with larger samples take generally found that lottery winners seem a little improve off – at least later their family and friends stop asking them for coin. Unfortunately, it's hard to say much because i) the samples are usually pocket-size, 2) the winnings are often besides small, and iii) the consequence measures all differ from one another, and from the papers above.^{17 eighteen 19 20 21 22}

And then in the end, what evidence we can get nigh lottery winners supports what we already thought: more income makes you happier, but but a lilliputian.

How do these figures employ to me?

The figures to a higher place are based on surveying a cantankerous-section of people in a country. To customize the $40,000 threshold for yourself, you might want to make the following adjustments:

• The $twoscore,000 figure was from 2009. Due to inflation, information technology'due south more than like $45,000 in 2016.
• Add together $20,000 per dependent who does not work that you fully support.
• Add 50% if you live in an expensive urban center (e.1000. NY, SF), or decrease xxx% if you live somewhere cheap (e.thou. rural Tennessee). You tin can find cost of living calculations online, similar this one.
• Add together more if you lot're especially motivated past coin (or subtract some if you lot take frugal tastes).
• Add 5-ten% in order to be able to save enough for retirement (or nevertheless much you personally need to relieve in gild to exist able to maintain the standard of living described higher up). It's true the people in the surveys to a higher place were saving for retirement, but we suspect non enough.

The average college graduate in the The states earns $77,000 per year over his or her life, while the average Ivy League graduate earns over $110,000.²³ The upshot is that if y'all're a college graduate in the U.S. (or a similar country), so you'll probable finish up well into the range where more income has near no effect on your happiness.

Are there exceptions to this general rule?

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

There's empirical support for this. A pocket-size percentage of people say making money is a top priority for them at the start of their careers, and these people do plow out to be significantly more than satisfied if they proceed to make a lot of information technology.²⁴ Maybe this is because they relish spending money more than others, or maybe it's just that checking their income is how they track their success. Unfortunately, people whose main goals require earning money are besides less satisfied with their lives on average.

If you want to support more financial dependents, you will need to earn more before the income-happiness relationship weakens in the way described above. Likewise, if you alive somewhere with an unusually high price of living, you can calibration up the figures at which money stops helping. Finally, if your friends are becoming wealthy and you want to proceed to socialise with them in expensive places, coin may as well be more valuable for you, though nosotros don't know of any specific studies on this.

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

How much does income matter relative to other factors?

If you lot're educated and in a rich state then there are other factors that will bear upon your happiness and satisfaction much more than extra income.

• Brawl & Chernova summate that for the median unmarried private, the happiness boost produced by union is matched only past a 767% increase in absolute income, or by an increase in relative income from the 50th to the 88th percentile.²⁵
• They as well found the boost associated with moving from a health rating of 3 to 4 (when health is scored from 1 to 5) is matched only by a vi,531% increase in absolute income, or by a movement from the 50th to the 100th percentile in relative income.
• Being widowed (as a adult female) or losing your chore (as a man) appears to reduce life satisfaction by about 0.5 points, on a calibration of i-7. Using our estimates above, this would be the aforementioned as having your income fall or rising by two thirds.²⁶
• Having a close friend become happy also seems to increase your take a chance of beingness happy a great bargain (at least x%).²⁷

What does this mean for your career choice?

We think the message is clear: if you want a satisfying career, in one case you're earning above almost $xl,000, don't focus on earning more money. Instead, focus on the factors we recommend in our commodity on how to discover fulfilling piece of work.

This is widely accepted past experts in the field. For example: Timothy Judge, professor of management at the University of Notre Dame, suggests that if you ultimately care about having a job that'due south satisfying:

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

(Though annotation the possible exceptional atmospheric condition above.)

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

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

This is one of the main reasons we think that if you lot want to assist people alive today, it's important to focus on the furnishings your actions take on those in the developing world. That's truthful whether we're talking about giving to charity, enacting policy reform, or setting up a social enterprise. Their welfare is simply much more responsive to changes in income.²⁹

You may have greater knowledge of your local customs, but that's probably not plenty to brand up for the fact that your resources could go one hundred times as far if you focus on the very poorest people. And fortunately there is high quality research you can rely on to know what really works in the developing world. 1 of the top opportunities is only direct giving coin to the very poor.

If you gave money to clemency, would it brand you more satisfied or less?

The results above suggest that if you're a professional in a rich country, having a lower income won't make y'all much less happy. Equally a result the personal costs of donating to charity are also likely pocket-sized.

Moreover, donating money is not at all the same as not earning it in the first place. Someone with an income that'south low relative to what they aspire to may feel unsuccessful, and therefore unsatisfied with their life. But if you earn a practiced salary and donate a big chunk, you probably won't experience that way. On the contrary – you'll meet yourself as successfully striving to brand your marker on the world.

At that place's considerable evidence that acts of altruism make us happier, more than satisfied and fifty-fifty healthier. This includes acts of charity, likewise as other ways of helping people such every bit ownership gifts for friends and family unit.

This means that donating coin could easily make you happier than spending it on yourself.

For instance:

Imagine the post-obit scenario. You are a participant in a psychological experiment: yous are given an envelope containing a small sum of money, which you are asked to spend inside 24 hours. The experimenter can assign you to i of atmospheric condition: she can require that you spend the coin on yourself (paying a bill or buying yourself a treat) or she can crave that you spend the coin on others (buying a nowadays for someone or donating the money to charity).

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

Aknin et al. examined survey-data from 136 countries gathered past the Gallup Organization, to see whether ratings of subjective wellbeing were positively correlated with donating to charity. Controlling for household income, it was constitute, in 122 of the 136 countries, that there is a positive correlation between subjective wellbeing and answering Yep to the question 'Have you lot donated money to charity in the last month?' On average, information technology was found, "donating to charity has a similar relationship to subjective wellbeing equally a doubling of household income."

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

Of form, this tin can't justify any level of donations. As is the instance for everything else nosotros spend our coin on, the selfish benefits nosotros become from donations will experience failing marginal returns: giving $ii,000 won't be twice as fulfilling as giving $1,000. And, in accordance with the logarithmic returns to spending described in a higher place, the more than money you donate, the more valuable is each incremental dollar of other personal consumption you lot're give up.

Still, I'd wait a moderate level of giving to lead to a similarly happy life as no giving, especially if you lot make your donations frequent and highly salient, so that you can bask the satisfaction that comes along with believing you're helping others.

The lesser line

You accept probably heard both from people who say earning a good income is both incredibly of import, and not important at all. As is oft the case when you lot await carefully at the evidence, the truth seems to be somewhere in between.

Unfortunately, existing research is not proficient enough to say for sure what impact a randomly assigned increase in income has on someone'south welfare. Hopefully more than thorough inquiry on lottery winners will answer this question in the future. But until then we at least take a lot of data on how people who earn both a lot and a little report feeling virtually their lives.

If you're poor, having even modest amounts of extra money is associated with significant gains in welfare. People in very poor countries report low levels of satisfaction with their lives, though their mean solar day-to-twenty-four hours happiness is surprisingly resilient.

Only most of our readers are university graduates in rich countries, the group that is least likely to do good from higher income. For them, making a meaningful contribution to their society and having skillful relationships with friends and family unit are likely to exercise them more skillful than a higher paying job. Inasmuch as earning more ways sacrificing these things it's a very questionable trade.

If y'all'd like to acquire more about how to have a career that makes you lot both happy and fulfilled sign up to our newsletter and nosotros'll update you on our latest inquiry each calendar month.

Yous can too continue reading our guide to finding a career that makes y'all truly happy.

---

Appendix I – Merely I've e'er been told we merely look at relative rather than accented income?

This remains the source of some controversy, just we think the answer is that nosotros care nigh both absolute and relative income.

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

The findings in the post above cast serious incertitude on whether at that place is any paradox to explicate. People in richer countries are somewhat more satisfied.

But Easterlin, who is now 90 and has spent much of his life studying this apparent paradox, was not convinced by this data. He published ii papers in response, attempting to bear witness that how quickly a country gets richer doesn't correlate with how quickly it gets satisfied.^{31 32} Easterlin believed the error being made by others was:

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

In response, Wolfers and Stevenson updated their paper to wait at how economic growth relates to satisfaction growth over the longest timescales they could analyse.^{3 33} Examining the figures in their paper, the two practise seem to move together, though at that place's a lot of other variation. This is to be expected. When you effort to chronicle growth rates in ii things, there is a lot of room for measurement fault: in baseline income, final income, baseline satisfaction, and terminal satisfaction. You measure all of these imperfectly, creating a lot of dissonance that obscures any shared motion they have. Furthermore, no 1 claims economic growth is the but, or even most important thing, determining shifts in happiness.

Wolfers and Stevenson explain the disagreement this way:

…you should never confuse absenteeism of evidence with testify of absence. Easterlin'southward mistake is to conclude that when a correlation is statistically insignificant, it must be goose egg. But if you put together a dataset with only a few countries in it – or in Easterlin's analysis, take a dataset with lots of countries, but throw away a bunch of information technology, and discard inconvenient observations – and so you'll typically find statistically insignificant results. This is fifty-fifty more problematic when you apply statistical techniques that don't extract all of the information from your information. Call back about it this way: if you flip a money 3 times, and it comes up heads all three times, you still don't have much reason to call back that the money is biased. But it would exist silly to say, "there's no compelling evidence that the coin is biased, and so it must be fair." Notwithstanding that's Easterlin's logic.

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

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

As an aside, one paper attempts to explain the failure of Chinese happiness to rising with reference to much college air pollution.³⁵

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

There's also a mutual sense statement that nosotros find compelling: if richer countries are more satisfied than poorer ones, which seems to be the example, it would be remarkable if countries didn't get somewhen more satisfied after they got richer, whatever the cause of the relationship between them. I suspect by studies were just not good enough to pick up the consequence.

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

Enjoy this? In that location's much more where that came from.

Join our newsletter and become updates on our latest research:

upchurchcomene79.blogspot.com

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

Share this post