Buffistas

I swear, one of these times, you're gonna wake up in a coma.

Cordelia ,'Showtime'

Natter .38 Special

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.

First Previous Next Last Recent

§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 2:10:44 pm PDT #683 of 10002

Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I think the reverse is the point -- an amount that may not even be a month's rent is way less significant to you than to someone for whom it's five years' rent. Or whatever.

It depends on whether you have next month's rent or not, doesn't it? I'm just snarking that the $30,000 break even point isn't breaking so much as broke in my neighbourhood. Any given amount of money will be valuable to the person with the least of it, but it's only a useful suggestion that I donate it if I can keep surviving without it myself.

Jesse - Aug 23, 2005 2:17:29 pm PDT #684 of 10002

Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

it's only a useful suggestion that I donate it if I can keep surviving without it myself.

The guy figured out or decided or pulled out of his ass that $30K is the number where more people could lose it with less bad consequence than the good consequence for the person who gets it. Not that anyone could live in any way on $30K.

I mean, all I know about this is what I read in Bob's post, but theoretically it makes sense to me.

§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 2:19:27 pm PDT #685 of 10002

Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I mean, all I know about this is what I read in Bob's post, but theoretically it makes sense to me.

Same here, but I was going on the assumption that "most" here:

$30,000 was picked because that's the point after which the benefit most people get from an extra dollar isn't as great as the benefit other people with less money would get from it.

is an average, and that if you got local, say to LA or NY, the number would be higher, and if you took it to Jamaica, it'd be lower.

bon bon - Aug 23, 2005 2:20:31 pm PDT #686 of 10002

It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.

I think there's some kind of study where the happiness you get from each additional dollar declines significantly once you've made $30,000.

tommyrot - Aug 23, 2005 2:21:37 pm PDT #687 of 10002

Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.

In economics it's called the "decreasing marginal utility of income."

§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 2:22:52 pm PDT #688 of 10002

Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

I think there's some kind of study where the happiness you get from each additional dollar declines significantly once you've made $30,000.

And that doesn't vary with cost of living?

§ ita § - Aug 23, 2005 2:27:37 pm PDT #689 of 10002

Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

Unrelatedly:

I like how the bubble imagery helps you extrapolate the premise to its natural conclusion.

Kat - Aug 23, 2005 2:28:50 pm PDT #690 of 10002

"I keep to a strict diet of ill-advised enthusiasm and heartfelt regret." Leigh Bardugo

oooh! quantification of happiness!

aurelia - Aug 23, 2005 2:29:33 pm PDT #691 of 10002

All sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story. Tell me a story.

I think there's some kind of study where the happiness you get from each additional dollar declines significantly once you've made $30,000.

So money can buy happiness (to a point)?

amych - Aug 23, 2005 2:33:37 pm PDT #692 of 10002

Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?

So money can buy happiness (to a point)?

It can buy lots and lots and lots of chocolate and TiVo storage. How you feel about it is your own business.

First Previous Next Last Recent