Reposted by Michał Białek
Philanthrotainers—people who shamelessly monetize charitable actions—evoke outrage.
But that outrage is bigger than the supposed moral transgression would normally arouse, argues @mbialek82.bsky.social. Why is that?
They expose what we’d rather keep concealed:
buff.ly/KfUjJfT
![Should the flattening pattern turn out to be robust in further data, would it imply that for a “category of unhappy people” money never improves happiness past a certain threshold? With only a momentary snapshot and little angle to identify a causal effect [unlike (6)], we should consider alternative explanations. Perhaps, at higher incomes, the effect of further income is less predictable. Most put the money to good use and improve their happiness; some immiserate themselves by purchasing a social media platform. Still, no one should refuse a raise: the expected value remains positive for everyone, even unhappy people. Or perhaps, more trivially, only disposable, or even discretionary income (“spending money”) increases happiness, not taxes paid. The relationship between gross household income and spending money varies along the income gradient owing to progressive taxation, social transfers, debts, household size, cost of living, etcetera.
So, is there an income threshold at $100,000 (or some higher level) “beyond which the miseries that remain are not alleviated by high income,” where money can no longer “buy happiness”? For now, let’s keep shopping for answers.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:rbamsrq5xdc25fdrmiicvi3f/bafkreigpogotss5evtg67akppxmkywcpjli2wjnfzzq6llkgvryg364m7u)
