How the Diamond Industry Scammed Us Into Spending Two Months’ Salary on an Engagement Ring

by John McDermott

I was recently shocked to learn one of my friends spent two months’ salary (“three months, post-tax”) on a diamond engagement ring for his fiancée. Not that the practice is unusual. It’s the cultural norm, especially among our immediate group of friends, all of whom threw down (at least) two months’ salary on a rock for their fiancées/wives.

But I was surprised about this friend in particular. I’ve always known him to be a defiant anti-conformist. He spent the better part of our college years railing about “The Man” and consumer culture, and openly wondering whether our perceived reality was really just a computer simulation. Not the type of guy who worries about keeping up with the Joneses.

Yet even he succumbed to convention and engaged in our culture’s most fraudulent “tradition.”

I don’t use fraudulent ironically here. I mean the engagement ring ritual is literally fabricated. It was invented in the 1940s as part of a marketing campaign by De Beers to sell diamonds to America’s emerging middle class, and it’s rooted in some of the most shameful elements of human history, including colonialism, misogyny and crass consumerism.

But the engagement ring not only persists today, it thrives. There it is, staring at us in the face every time we open Instagram or Facebook:

 

Even today—with fewer young people getting married, and their economic futures never more uncertain—the engagement ring and its corresponding two-months’ salary rule remain among the most cherished and steadfast of cultural practices.

“There have been customs of ring-giving in Western cultures for centuries,” says Moira Weigel, author of Labor of Love, a book about the history of dating and courtship. Shakespeare makes frequent reference to rings as a symbol for love and marriage in his plays. In As You Like It, he writes, “Springtime, the only pretty ring time,” an apparent reference to spring fever, and the romance that fills the air as the world thaws from winter.

“But the specific custom of giving a diamond ring is more recent,” Weigel continues. Specifically, it dates back to colonial Britain and first entered the public consciousness in 1840, when Queen Victoria received an emerald engagement ring in the shape of a serpent.

Queen Victoria made diamond rings fashionable, Weigel says, but the trend didn’t gain traction until the latter half of the 19th century, during Britain’s colonization of South Africa and the discovery of massive diamond mines in the region. That led to the creation of De Beers Consolidated Mines in 1888, which more or less operated as a cartel over the next few decades, controlling every aspect of the diamond trade.

When De Beers wasn’t busy controlling supply and giving the false impression its diamonds were scarce, it manipulated demand, convincing the American public that a diamond ring was a necessary part of the marriage process.

In 1938, De Beers hired N.W. Ayer & Son, a New York-based ad agency, “to persuade young men that diamonds (and only diamonds) were synonymous with romance, and that the measure of a man’s love (and even his personal and professional success) was directly proportional to the size and quality of the diamond he purchased,” Uri Friedman writes in The Atlantic.

Ayer’s plan included putting diamond engagement rings on famous actresses and socialites (and then tipping the press about it), and having lecturers visit high schools and indoctrinate American children about the significance of the engagement ring. It was also an Ayer copywriter who thought up the tagline, “Diamonds Are Forever,” which endures today….

more…

https://melmagazine.com/how-the-diamond-industry-scammed-us-into-spending-two-months-salary-on-an-engagement-ring-209138aac5f8

WIKK WEB GURU

Trying to Figure Out How Much I’ve Spent on Booze in My Life Is the Stupidest Thing I’ve Ever Done

Oh god oh god oh god oh god oh god

by Nick Leftley

My name is Nick, and I am not an alcoholic.

But I do like alcohol quite a bit. And I’ve always been aware, on some level, that I’ve probably spent a fair bit of my disposable income on it over the years. Pretty much all of it, in fact. Still, the anxiety that came with adding it all up — and the sick horror at the final tally — wasn’t something I was prepared for. Consider this a warning: If at least three of your top five hobbies involve drinking alcohol, you may not like what you’re about to find out.

Some disclaimers before we begin. First: I’m bad at math and my memory — as we will soon discover — has been pickled by years of drinking. I haven’t taken into account inflation over the 20-year span of my investigation, nor have I accounted for the differences in the U.K.-U.S. exchange rate over time. (I’m a Brit who’s lived in the U.S. since 2009.) I’m prone to both wild overestimation and underestimation. This entire piece may be bullshit. But with that out of the way, here’s my very rough estimate of the obscene amount of money I have sunk into murdering my liver.

Late Teens

The pubs in England rarely card you, so let’s assume I was out drinking once or twice a week by the age of 16. The two weekend jobs I had probably let me spend about 20 quid ($25) a week, but over the course of two years, that’s already… £2,080? Really? That’s $2,685! Before I turned 18! Throw in another $250 or so on all the plastic bottles of vodka that were taken to house parties, and we’re up to roughly $3,000. Ugh.
Total: $3,000
Shame Level: Surprisingly high this early in the game.

College

Student bars are dirt-cheap, but if you’re out every other night and spending 10 pounds each time, that’s $50-ish a week — which is pretty much what I did in my first year, so that’s $2,685 just for those 12 months. This went down drastically in my remaining time there, though (largely thanks to a recurring, non-booze-related illness), so let’s say the same amount in total for those years.
Total: $5,370
Shame Level: Holding steady.

Early 20s

The combination of illness and shit-paying temp jobs and bar work means my first two years after graduation weren’t flush with cash. Call it an overall average of one night out a week at about $30 a pop.
Total: $3,355
Shame Level: Manageable.

London

I moved to London at 24 after landing a steady writing gig. And so, I went out. A lot. In fact, the odd bottle of wine aside, I can barely remember ever buying booze to drink at home until many years later. Now, granted, on many of those nights out, someone else was picking up the tab (thank you, every PR firm in England), but London is still an expensive city to drink in. Here’s my estimate for the following five years:

  • Couple of $4 or $5 beers with lunch two or three times a week: $6,038.
  • Out somewhere I had to buy my own drinks, at least twice a week, probably around 50 bucks a pop: $26,834.
  • $12 bottle of wine or a few beers with dinner a couple nights a week, call it $25 a week: $6,709.

Total: $39,586
Shame Level: This can’t be accurate. It can’t be. It’s more than twice my pre-tax salary for the first year I was there, which makes it basically impossible. Doesn’t it? Oh God, I feel sick.

New York

I left London for New York at 29 and spent the first year floundering financially: A generous overestimate for that year would be $50 a week on booze, so $2,600 overall, maybe. Consistent work followed, though, as did pissing money down the drain once more (although, thankfully, lunchtime drinking was almost nonexistent there). The breakdown for the next five years:

  • Out somewhere I had to buy my own drinks, at least twice a week, probably around $70 on average (sometimes $30, sometimes $100+): $36,400.
  • Wine or beer with dinner a couple nights a week, call it $30 a week: $7,800.

Total: $44,200
Shame Level: Somewhere between throwing up in the middle of making out and pissing myself on public transport. I am praying, praying, that this is off by at least 50 percent.

Fatherhood

In 2015, I relocated to New Jersey to have a baby and never went out again. A year later, I relocated yet again — this time to Los Angeles, just to make a trifecta of three of the world’s most expensive cities — to have a second baby and to somehow go out even less. If you combined all the times I’ve gone out for drinks — or had drinks with dinner — since my first child was born, I doubt it’s more than $1,300. We do still buy booze to drink at home, though, so between all the wine, beer and spirits loaded into that Costco cart, that’s about $150 a month, or $3,600 altogether.
Total: $4,900
Shame Level: Honestly, still in shock from London and New York totals. I am a monster.

And that brings us up to the present day. Which means it’s time to add all this up…

GRAND TOTAL: $103,011.

$103,011. Enough to put one of my daughters through a good chunk of college. Enough to purchase a four-bedroom house in Texas outright. Enough to buy five-and-a-half locks of David Bowie’s hair.

Guh.

Guhh.

GUUUHHHHHHHH.

Okay, calm down. Calm down. Let the dry heaves pass. I’m 37 now: We’re talking about $100,000 over the course of, pretty much, 20 years. Which breaks down to an average of five grand a year. Which further breaks down to $416 a month, or about $100 a week. Which… sounds pretty normal, right? This random article I found on the internet says it’s almost sort of normal, so it must be true!

What freaks me out is that all of this is just alcohol. It’s not post-drink munchies; it’s not cabs and cigarettes; it’s not, well, y’know, other stuff. So even assuming that I’ve overestimated by 50 percent, which is entirely possible — did I mention I’m bad at math? — throw all that in and you’re still looking at six figures. Add in what my wife has spent on going out in her life, and between us, you get a figure that only wouldn’t keep me up at night because my children already have that covered.

There are two possible takeaways here. One: Use this knowledge as a long-overdue wake-up call and start accounting for alcohol when budgeting to save yourself from financial ruin. Two: Assume I’ve got the numbers completely wrong and laugh about what an idiot I am as you’re buying the next round.

For the record, I’ll be doing the latter.

https://melmagazine.com/trying-to-figure-out-how-much-ive-spent-on-booze-in-my-life-is-the-stupidest-thing-i-ve-ever-done-3130bb82955d

WIKK WEB GURU

Can We See A Bubble If We’re Inside The Bubble?

by Tyler Durden

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

We want this time to be different so badly, we can almost taste it.

If you visit San Francisco, you will find it difficult to walk more than a few blocks in central S.F. without encountering a major construction project. It seems that every decrepit low-rise building in the city has been razed and is being replaced with a gleaming new residential tower.

Parking lots have been ripped up and are now sprouting condos and luxury rental flats.

This boom is not overly surprising, given the centrality of San Francisco and the S.F. Bay Area in the Hipster-Techie Mental Map which I have sketched here for those who may still suffer from delusions that Washington D.C. and New York matter–(hint: they don’t.)

The influx of mobile/software tech into the S.F. Bay Area has triggered not just a boom in tech but in all the service sectors that cater to well-paid techies. This mass of new people has created traffic jams that last virtually all day and evening, and overloaded the area’s BART transit rail system such that trains at 11 pm are as jammed as any during rush hour.

This phenomenal building boom is truly something to behold, as it has spread from S.F. to the East Bay as workers priced out of S.F. move east across the Bay, driving up rents to near-S.F. levels.

Yes, rents and home prices are starting to soften, but this hasn’t changed the general view that this is only a moderation of a long-term uptrend with no end in sight.

This is of course a modern analog of the Gold Rush in the 1850s, and the previous tech/building boom in the late 1990s: an enormous influx of income drives a building boom and a mass influx of treasure-seekers, entrepreneurs, dreamers and those hoping to land a good-paying job in Boomland.

The same phenomenon has been visible in the Oil Patch states every time oil/gas skyrocket in price.

We know how every boom ends–in an equally violent bust. Yet in the euphoria of the boom, it’s easy to think this one will last longer than the others.

I distinctly recall the mass excitement of COMDEX in 1999, the big computer-tech trade show in Las Vegas. The city was packed, the convention centers were packed, and an enormous banner announcing the then revolutionary slogan “the network is the computer–Sun Microsystems” welcomed the faithful.

I saw Bluetooth demonstrated for the first time in that show (at a Motorola booth), and dozens of other consumer technologies that never quite caught on–kits to turn your PC into a TV, etc.

Now we see the same euphoria in the FAANG stocks, Big Data, A.I., crypto-currency Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs) and so on.

A year later the bubble had burst, and a decade later Sun Micro had lost its edge and would end its glorious run in the ignominy of being sold to Oracle for pennies on the dollar.

Rents in San Francisco are now so obscene that there is even a parody in which Hitler tries to rent a flat in S.F.

Across the Bay in Oakland, new relatively large 1-bedroom flats with Bay views are asking $3,300 a month. The same flat in S.F. would fetch $4,000 or more per month. Techies working for free on a buddy’s start-up have famously rented the space beside the washing machine in a laundry room for $400 a month.

How many average workers can afford to pay $40,000 a year in rent? After taxes, even techies earning $80,000/year would have little to show for their labor once they paid $40K after $20K in taxes and deductions have been subtracted from their annual wage.

The current Gold Rush will collapse, and as the newly fired marginalized workers pack up and leave, nobody will be renting the flats for $4,000/month. The owners will try reducing the rents to $3,000/month, and with no takers, they will go bust and the gleaming towers will be auctioned off. Eventually rents will decline to what people can actually afford.

This process will take a few years, as owners are reluctant to accept secular declines in rent and the resulting insolvency. Restaurants and other secondary businesses that arose to serve the techies will hang on, paying insane rents, for a few months and then give up losing money and close…

more…

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-16/can-we-see-bubble-if-were-inside-bubble

WIKK WEB GURU

Saving Money Was Too Stressful, So I Gave It Up to Live a Normal Life

by John McDermott

Gemma and Robert Hartley had been living frugally for five years when he broke down and decided he couldn’t do it anymore. They’d reduced their overall debt, which include a mortgage, credit card debt and medical bills, from $130,000 to $105,000. And supposing their incomes continued to increase, their penny-pinching plan would leave them debt-free within another five years, with even their house paid off in full.

But Robert had reached his limit. He was tired of living with their three children in a three-bedroom house in a rundown neighborhood in Reno. He wanted something bigger and nicer, even if it meant adding years to Gemma’s debt-paydown plan. More than that, he was exhausted by the frugal lifestyle his wife had imposed on their family. They walked to the grocery store and bought all their homeware items secondhand. They didn’t vacation and only went out when the activity was free, such as hiking. Instead of going out to eat, they invited friends over for potluck dinners. “It worked well for me, but not for him,” Gemma says. “He resented me for always being the one to call the shots and preventing him from feeling like he had any control over our money.

So Gemma relented. They shifted some of the financial decision-making to Robert, started going out for dinner and drinks more frequently and bought a new house — one that cost more than twice as much, and increased their debt total to $285,000. Gemma says they’re happier now, but she still feels the occasional pang of guilt over their new, relatively free-wheeling lifestyle.

“We’re currently looking at being debt-free when we’re 55,” says Gemma, who, like Robert, is 28. “[Fifty-five] isn’t a terrible age to be debt-free, but when I think about how I could’ve been debt-free by 30, it’s a hard number to wrap my mind around. I definitely get anxiety about not saving as much.”

The Hartleys are not alone among people for whom the cost of living frugally proved too much and who abandoned their original financial goals so they could spend more freely. Their financial prospects may have lessened, but their mental health has improved.

After all, vowing to save more money and/or pay off debts often requires more than a few changes in behavior; many times, it requires completely overhauling one’s life. People who have successfully paid off their debts report that it came at the expense of their relationships and happiness. They trade expensive hobbies for cheap ones, live in squalor, lose friends, take up side gigs and remain homebound at almost all times.

“Saving takes a toll emotionally,” says Terri Orbuch, a sociology professor at Oakland University and an expert on the intersection of money and relationships. “People know they should save, live frugally and pay down their debts. But when they look around and it seems like no one else is doing that, they feel alone.” (No wonder money is the leading cause of stress in the U.S.)

Ariel Lawson, 23, of Jacksonville, Florida, gave up frugal living three years ago when she fell in with a highly active group of friends. Previously, Lawson spent most of her time playing video games and hanging out with a controlling boyfriend who forbid her from socializing with anyone else. The isolation allowed them to save between $4,000 and $5,000 a month, however, and after two years together, they put a down payment on a four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bathroom home.

When they split up, Lawson was liberated, and suddenly found herself not only having friends, but part of a 30-person friend group that had social activities lined up every day of the week. (She also got to stay in the house, and rents out the other three rooms to pay down the mortgage.) Every Wednesday, they went to see a friend DJ. Every Thursday, they went to a bar that offered free beer and pizza from 10 p.m. to midnight. Every Friday and Saturday night, they went dancing…

more…

https://melmagazine.com/saving-money-was-too-stressful-so-i-gave-it-up-to-live-a-normal-life-b4ecf38c4c35

WIKK WEB GURU

What to Do When You Need $100, Fast

Photo by CafeCredit

by Kristin Wong

A new poll from Bloomberg suggests that almost half of Americans would have a hard time affording a $100 emergency, like a speeding ticket, medical bill, or other unexpected expense. Consider the idea that maybe this says less about the financial habits of Americans than it does our garbage economy.

Stop Blaming It All on Bad Money Habits

People are quick to judge when it comes to just about everything, but money seems to kill empathy faster than any other topic. Have massive student loan debt? You were stupid for going to college. Can’t afford your medical bills? Shouldn’t have bought an iPhone. Don’t have a job? Youmust be lazy.

None of that could possibly have anything to do with the fact that, for years now, wage growth has been stagnant and the job market has been unstable—when asked how they get paid, a quarter of those polled said, “it depends on the week.”

Bloomberg’s poll also found that 28% of respondents were worried about being able to pay for a mere $10 emergency. At this point, are we seriously still going to blame avocado toast?

That said, if you’re one of the many who struggles to afford a $100 emergency, you need an emergency fund more than anyone. The trouble is, people blame your bad financial habits, which is completely discouraging and likely only makes you want to give up altogether—don’t! Here’s some judgment-free info on what you can do when you’re strapped for cash and an emergency arises.

Let’s say you do get a speeding ticket and you have absolutely nothing saved. This is typically when people make desperate decisions that can push them into a downward spiral of debt, which typically leads to more desperate decisions and more debt.

Here are the worst options for financing an emergency:

  • Payday loans: With sky-high fees and interest rates, payday loans are a notorious debt trap and probably the last place you want to turn, especially if your income varies on a weekly basis. One late payment and you’re screwed.
  • Debt settlement: This isn’t always a debt trap, but it certainly can be. ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions explains that this is “a form of debt relief that is considered by financial experts to be extremely dangerous.” Debt settlement usually includes fees and rigid contracts—if you miss a payment, you could lose all of your money, and none of it will go toward your debt.
  • High-interest credit cards: This is probably a slightly better, less predatory option than the above, but only slightly. Miss a payment and you’re on the hook for fees and interest. That said, some credit card companies are willing to work with you and might lower your monthly minimum so you can at least avoid a late payment fee.

And here are some better alternatives:

  • Peer-to-peer lending: Sites like LendingClub and Prosper connect borrowers to regular people who loan their money so they can earn interest on it. As NerdWallet explains, your loan is funded by individual investors and the interest rate is determined by how much risk they’re willing to accept. The lender handles the paperwork and payments.
  • Credit union loans: Many credit unions offer short-term loans specifically designed to help people going through a rough patch. The terms are usually a hell of a lot better than payday loans and they consider applicants with poor credit, too. “Credit union lending has traditionally been at the heart of the credit union movement,” Samantha Paxson, Chief Marketing and Experience Officer at CO-OP Financial Services, told us in an email. “Individual credit unions offer loans at lower rates than banks because they are member-owned—people helping people; interest rates are lower because that is the motive, not profit.”
  • Small Dollar Loans: Through the FDIC’s Small Dollar Loan program, some banks offer “affordable” small loans to customers in a bind. NerdWallet explains more here, but generally, “affordable” means interest rates can’t be higher than 36%, which is still a lot, but it’s much less than the 200% interest rate (considering the fees they charge) you’ll get with a payday loan.

Seriously, if nothing else, just stay away from payday loans.

Why You Need an Emergency Fund

Ultimately, of course, you need an emergency fund. This is easier said than done, but consider this: an emergency fund gives you power and control over not only your finances but many other aspects of your life, too. (Here’s some recommended reading: A Story of a Fuck Off Fund.) When you have that money saved, you’re less likely to make rash and desperate choices. For once, you’ll have some breathing room in your life.

If you have to build an emergency fund from scratch, it’s best to start small. (Here’s how I did it. I’m not saying what worked for me will absolutely work for everyone else, but it may help.)

Most experts recommend saving between three to six months’ worth of living expenses, but if you’re struggling just to get by, this probably seems like a pipe dream. Instead, make that $100 your goal and look for ways to save a few bucks here and there, wherever you can find the cash. It might mean picking up overtime, selling some stuff, or looking for ways to save on each and every one of your monthly bills.

Ideally, you’ll keep your emergency fund in a separate savings account so you can’t touch it, and while some banks require a minimum balance to keep your account open, many of them don’t. A few of those include: Ally, Discover Bank, and Synchrony. Best of all, those banks don’t charge monthly fees.

http://twocents.lifehacker.com/what-to-do-when-you-need-100-fast-1795373661

WIKK WEB GURU

WHY LIVING WITH LESS CAN ACTUALLY MAKE YOU HAPPIER

by Phillip Schneider, Staff Writer, Waking Times

Will having more wealth actually make you happier? According to a number of studies an addition to your income isn’t only unlikely to make you happier, but it can make those around you less happy, and you for the fear of losing it.

To explain, we must first look at a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. Two economists, David Blanchflower of Dartmouth and Andrew Oswald of Warwick, set out to document the relation that age has to overall happiness. What they found was that as income tends to increase steadily over time, happiness follows a U-shape pattern, dipping to its lowest point at around age 45, then quickly climbing up thereafter.

A large-scale survey from the General Social Survey, which included around 20,000 men and 25,000 women of 16 years and older supports these findings. After asking Americans to rank their happiness on a 3 point scale ranging from “very happy” to “pretty happy” to “not too happy”, they found a resulting average of 2.2, or just over “pretty happy”. The Eurobaromoter, after conducting a similar survey on close to 400,000 men and women in 11 European countries from 1975 to 1998 found that the average self-assessed happiness score across Europe is 3 out of 4.

After further investigation, Oswald and Blanchflower found that the age of any given person in the developing world is more powerful in determining overall happiness than a halving or doubling of income. Also, they found that people of every gender and income have become enormously less happy throughout the past century. The difference in levels of happiness between those born in the 1960’s vs the 1920’s is the same effect as a tenfold difference in income, despite the fact that the younger generation is far more prosperous.

“I thought, if I could make 10 million dollars then it must be too easy. In fact, I honestly thought, everyone else had probably already made 11 million dollars. So then I felt poor again. I now needed 100 million dollars to be happy.” ~James Altucher

What could explain this sharp decrease in happiness over time? Well, one of the largest societal changes that occurred throughout the 20th century was the onset of a mass consumerist culture. Before the roaring 1920’s, life was much simpler and people didn’t have strong desires for material things beyond the basics to live a fulfilling life like we do today.

On a scientific level, the ultimate reward for the purchase of a new watch, car, or other status symbol is a short-term release in dopamine which triggers a brief period of personal satisfaction. This is why we feel good after buying new things and it’s where the term “retail therapy” comes from. However, the happiness one gets from material worth is short-lived. After time, the buyer will revert back to their original demeanor, while obtaining a sense of comfort and security from those new things they bought.

From this perspective, it begins to make sense why prosperous people in the developing world are some of the most prone to depression; they become afraid of losing what they have which their peers don’t. In fact, those on the opposite end are shown to have the reverse effect and often become more depressed when around those with greater wealth. Contrary to popular belief that areas of high poverty produce higher homicide rates, it is actually those with the highest income disparity.

“Riches leave a man always as much and sometimes more exposed than before to anxiety, to fear and to sorrow.” ~Adam Smith

About the Author

Phillip Schneider is a student and a staff writer for Waking Times.

This article (Why Living With Less Can Actually Make You Happier) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Phillip Schneider and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/05/16/living-less-can-actually-make-happier/

WIKK WEB GURU

Study Suggests Money Alone Won’t Make You Happy (Even if You’re Rich)

by John McDermott

Our culture is filled with aphorisms and cautionary tales about the corrupting effect of money. “Money doesn’t buy happiness.” “Money is the root of all evil.”

Yet our collective obsession with money and consumerism persists.

A new study from SUNY Buffalo confirms that being fixated on money is indeed unhealthy. When people base their self-worth on their financial success, they’re more likely to suffer from a host of psychological issues, including higher levels of anxiety and helplessness. People who tie their self-worth to their financial success also tend to use more more words that describe negative emotions, such as “sadness” and “anger,” according to the study.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the study, though, was that these results were true regardless of class and financial status. In other words, rich people consumed with amassing wealth are just as unhappy as poor ones.

“Basing self-worth on financial success predicts psychological well-being independent of variables [such as wealth and economic class],” says psychology professor Lora Park, lead author on the study. “We do find, however, that people who experience more economic hardship are more likely to base their self-esteem on financial success.”

As Park mentions, ours is a consumer culture that tends to equate a person’s bank account with their intellect and general competence. So it’s easy to understand why poor Americans might view their situation as an indictment of their character.

That rich people are equally affected suggests that, when money is a goal in and of itself, no amount of it will ever provide a person with the psychological fulfillment they so desperately desire. “Beyond a certain point, more money doesn’t lead to greater happiness,” Park says.

Indeed, in a separate study from 2010, Princeton University researchers found that people’s happiness increases with their salary, but only up to $75,000 a year. Any income gains beyond $75,000 have no tangible effect on a person’s well-being.

Park’s study doesn’t mean it’s bad to be money-conscious, however. People are fully capable of being knowledgeable about personal finance and maintaining their mental health, as long as that personal finance knowledge doesn’t evolve into the pursuit of wealth simply for the sake of it.

https://melmagazine.com/study-suggests-money-alone-wont-make-you-happy-even-if-you-re-rich-91f72b709e4c

WIKK WEB GURU
%d bloggers like this: