Irish Saying if You Want to Know What God Thinks About Money

Last updated: March 2016.

Full reading time: 15 minutes.

Introduction

Information technology'due south a platitude that "you can't buy happiness", just at the same fourth dimension, financial security is amid most people'due south top career priorities.^one Moreover, when people are asked what would most ameliorate the quality of their lives, the most mutual respond is more than coin.² What's going on here? Who is right?

A lot of the research on this question is of remarkably low quality. But there have been some recent major studies in economics that permit us to make progress. In item, we at present finally have survey data from hundreds of thousands of people all around the globe. Nosotros've sifted through the best studies available to figure out what's really going on. The truth seems to lie in the middle: money does brand you happy, but but a fiddling. And this has many important implications about trade-offs you face in your life and career.

Summary of main points

• Recent surveys of hundreds of thousands of people, in over 150 countries, show that richer people study being more satisfied with their lives overall, but that the richer y'all go, the more money you need to increase your satisfaction further. This is considering people spend money on the most important things first. Someone earning $100,000 per year is but a little more satisfied than someone earning $50,000. The best bachelor study constitute that each doubling of your income correlated with a life satisfaction 0.5 points higher on a scale of i to 10.
• If you look at how 'happy' people say they are right now, the relationship is weaker. One large study plant people in countries with average incomes of $32,000 were only 10% happier with their lives than those in countries with boilerplate incomes of just $two,000; some other within the US could find no event above a $xl,000 income for a single person.
• Moreover, some and mayhap even most of this relationship is not causal. For case, healthier people will exist 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 money making people happier is still non known with conviction.
• In one case you lot get to an private income of effectually $40,000, other factors, such as health, relationships and a sense of purpose, seem far more of import than income. So our recommendation is non to focus on earning more than this (insofar equally you desire to get happy, anyway).
• However, yous may gain from earning more than that if: yous have dependents, y'all care most money more than than other people, or you live in an area with an unusually high toll of living.
• Giving money to someone living on $ane,000 per yr in the developing earth will exercise far more to improve their lives than giving the same corporeality to someone earning $25,000. The correlations above suggest that it will be about 25 times more valuable. If yous want to help 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 y'all less happy, and may well make you happier.

Are richer people more satisfied with their lives?

Thinking about it for a moment, y'all'd expect that the richer y'all are, the more extra coin you need to further increase your happiness.

If you lot're earning $10,000 a yr, and you lot become an actress $1,000, you're probably going to use it on something pretty important, like making rent, which will brand a big difference to your happiness. Merely if you're earning $100,000 per yr, you'll hardly notice an actress $1,000. Maybe you lot'll just use it to eat out a bit more. In other words, you'd look the relationship to exist diminishing. If you lot depict out a graph of income against happiness, it'll expect a scrap similar the graph below. This is what every economist, philosopher and psychologist who works on this topic expects to come across.

At some point yous end up spending money on stuff that doesn't make much difference. For example:

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

The interesting question is how fast that happens. It may be that at heart-course incomes extra coin still makes you significantly happier. Or possibly after that betoken extra income has no discernible bear upon at all.

One fashion to figure this out is to ask lots of people all around the globe 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) – ten (very satisfied)."

In the 70s and 80s, it was widely thought by psychologists that afterwards a sure bespeak, in that location was no human relationship between income and life satisfaction, at least in wealthier countries.

Today, larger and more rigorous studies oasis't borne out that result. Every bit you go richer, you lot need a lot more than money to make you lot more satisfied, but there's no maximum level of income across which more seems to contribute nothing.

The best report we could find is this 1 by famous economists Betsy Stevenson and Justin Wolfers. It draws on polling data from hundreds of thousands of people in 166 countries and found that people in richer countries reported being more satisfied with their lives than those in poorer countries, and that within a land, richer people also reported beingness more satisfied than those with lower incomes.

Prototype source.

Equally you can see, this survey found a articulate direct-line relationship between income and happiness both within and between countries. The lines are straight rather than curved because each increment on the bottom of the axis indicates a doubling of income.

Roughly, what this ways is that if you double your income, you gain about half a bespeak on a scale of 1 to 10 of life satisfaction. More precisely, this is a chosen a logarithmic relationship.

Note that this is but an clan at this point – nosotros discuss whether college income is actually causing people to become more satisfied beneath.

According to this survey information, a typical person with a household income of $two,000 rates their life satisfaction at around 4.2 out of 10. A typical person with a household income of $64,000 rates their life satisfaction at 7.2 out of 10.³

In the by, with only inconsistent polls available in a small number of countries, this relationship was much less articulate, causing researchers to call up at that place was no relationship betwixt satisfaction and income. For more on the controversy about this today you can skip to Appendix I.

OK, but are richer people happier?

There's more evidence for a maximum useful level of income if instead of request people how their life is going overall, we ask them how they feel right now or felt yesterday.

For instance, 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 means:⁴

• Positive bear on – "were you happy yesterday?"
• Low stress – "did y'all experience stressed yesterday?"
• Non blueish – "did you lot feel lamentable yesterday?"
• Ladder – "how satisfied are you with your life overall?"

Here's the consequence:

Again, the scale at the bottom doubles with each increase.

You can see that the "ladder" of life satisfaction is roughly direct all the mode up, just as we constitute before.

However, the other three lines start to flatten around $l,000, and are completely apartment past $75,000. This ways that actress income had no relationship with how happy, lamentable and stressed people felt afterward this indicate.

Moreover, note that this is $l-75,000 of household income. That's equivalent to an individual income of more than like $26-40,000 if y'all're single and not supporting kids.^v

Non all studies find that money stops having any affect. For example, another enormous data analysis by Daniel Sacks, Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson found that happiness continued to ameliorate in countries with college incomes – or at least there was no clear levelling off (meet figure below).⁶

People in richer countries were more probable to recall feeling 'enjoyment' or dearest yesterday, and less likely to experience 'depression', or 'physical pain' despite existence older (run across the figure beneath).

People in richer countries were also a scrap more likely to written report being consistently treated with respect, having good tasting nutrient, smiling or laughing a lot, and being free to choose how they spend their time (encounter the effigy below).⁷

But simply scanning the information y'all tin can see that these associations, while real, are quite weak because the enormous range of income across the sample. Raising income sixteen-fold, from $2,000 to $32,000, moved reported happiness from iii.0/four to iii.3/iv.⁸ A 64-fold increment in income, from $500 to $32,000, increased the probability of recalling feeling enjoyment or eating tasty food yesterday from around 60% to 80%. A 64-fold increase in income only raised the likelihood of feeling 'love' yesterday from 63% to 73%. Much of our everyday human being experiences are simply not affected much by coin. In other words:

In other studies we looked at, overall life evaluation always showed the strongest relationship with income. If you ask people how happy they experience today, or felt yesterday the relationship becomes more tenuous.⁹

What can make sense of these results?

We guess the central factor is the 1 we noted at the beginning – you lot have the best opportunities to invest in your happiness first, so as you become more than coin, it becomes harder and harder to purchase more happiness. Somewhen the effect of additional income of happiness becomes negligible relative to other factors.

There could be other reasons for a weak relationship. For example, ane manner to earn more money is to work longer hours in a job few other people want to practise. Perchance the unhappiness caused by these extra hours at work offsets whatever you gain from the extra income. Information technology'due south a case of mo' money, mo' problems.

There's some bear witness for this idea. This meta-analysis of over 100 studies institute only a very weak human relationship between pay and job satisfaction.¹⁰ Some kinds of jobs are low-paying precisely because they are satisfying. For case, if education weren't fulfilling, salaries would have to be higher to convince enough people to become teachers.

Another factor is that we readily adapt to having more coin. If you simply have champagne once a year, it's a special occasion. But to quote more Biggie, if "nosotros sip champagne when nosotros thirst-ay", it's no large deal. This is called the "hedonic treadmill". This is particularly true when nosotros spend coin on material goods, like fancy dress, which we quickly get used to.¹¹ Moreover, we persistently underestimate how much we can accommodate, and then expect money to matter more than it does.¹²

Yet, there are some things nosotros can't adapt to, which explains why there remains some human relationship between income and happiness fifty-fifty among the rich. One example is that long commutes brand people unhappy – and they never get used to them (run into the figure below).¹³ More money tin can also assist you lot have more interesting, varied experiences and relationships, which are important too.¹¹

Paradigm source.

How come life satisfaction seems to increase more than steeply with income than 24-hour interval-to-day happiness? Here'due south a probable explanation. If someone asks y'all whether you are in concrete pain, information technology'southward easy to bank check and give a meaningful answer. But if someone asks you on the telephone how satisfied you lot are with your life, all things considered, on a scale of one to x… it can be hard to say. As yous don't really know how satisfied you are on boilerplate, and yous take to answer quickly, people are inclined to substitute in its identify a related question that is easier to answer. A natural option is 'how much coin am I making relative to others?', or 'how well is my career going?'. This widely observed phenomenon is chosen aspect substitution by psychologists.

In this respect experience sampling is superior considering information technology avoids a range of possible biases in people's perception and recollection of their life.¹⁴ Even so, life satisfaction passes several tests for being a skillful psychological measure (for example, information technology is stable over fourth dimension and predicts time to come behaviour) then shouldn't be disregarded.¹⁵

So would making more than money make you happier?

Then far we've just looked at the correlation between income and happiness, only correlation doesn't imply causation. Every bit Stevenson and Wolfers remark:

We should note that we take focused on establishing the magnitude of the relationship between subjective well-existence and income, rather than disentangling causality from correlation. The causal impact of income on individual or national subjective well-being, and the mechanisms by which income raises subjective well-being, remain open and of import questions.

Information technology could be that there's some other factor that causes both happiness and income. If this is true, boosting your income won't boost your happiness. For instance, possibly healthier people are both happier and able to earn more considering they have more energy. Or maybe happiness increases your income considering happier people make better colleagues.

If these other connections exist, and they probably do, making an try to earn more money won't increase your happiness as much as you lot'd promise from the above correlations alone.

And so, if the question is "if I earn more money, will I exist happier?", then the human relationship is likely weaker than what we've seen higher up.

And the relationship above was already pretty weak: If you already earn over $40,000, then you need to gain an actress $forty,000 per yr only to gain 0.5 on a 10 point scale of life satisfaction. You tin can wait piffling if any noticeable issue on day-to-day happiness, stress or sadness. That's a lot of income for a limited gain.

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

So, what near lottery winners? When people write virtually 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 good prove that in that location's almost no human relationship between income and happiness, even if you could get the money without having to practise whatever extra work.

All the same, we went and read the original study, and found that actually the lottery winners were happier – they reported their happiness as 4 (out of vi) compared to three.82 for the command group.¹⁶

But the real trouble is that the written report had a tiny sample: there were just 22 winners. This was and so small – and the control group so inappropriately selected – that the authors themselves didn't believe they had nevertheless discovered much. Unfortunately, the story was too proficient for people to carp fact checking.

(This is also the newspaper you might accept 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 as two.96, much lower than others.)

Newer studies with larger samples take generally found that lottery winners seem a niggling meliorate off – at least after their family unit and friends cease asking them for money. Unfortunately, it'south hard to say much because i) the samples are ordinarily small, ii) the winnings are oft also small-scale, and 3) the result measures all differ from one another, and from the papers above.^{17 eighteen nineteen 20 21 22}

So in the terminate, what testify we can get about lottery winners supports what we already thought: more income makes you happier, but only a footling.

How do these figures apply to me?

The figures above are based on surveying a cross-department of people in a country. To customize the $40,000 threshold for yourself, y'all might want to make the post-obit adjustments:

• The $xl,000 effigy was from 2009. Due to inflation, it's more similar $45,000 in 2016.
• Add together $20,000 per dependent who does not piece of work that y'all fully back up.
• Add 50% if y'all live in an expensive urban center (east.1000. NY, SF), or decrease xxx% if you lot alive somewhere cheap (e.grand. rural Tennessee). Y'all tin find price of living calculations online, like this one.
• Add more if yous're specially motivated by money (or subtract some if yous have frugal tastes).
• Add 5-x% in order to be able to save enough for retirement (or however much you personally demand to save in order to be able to maintain the standard of living described to a higher place). It's true the people in the surveys above were saving for retirement, but we suspect non plenty.

The boilerplate college graduate in the United 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 you're a college graduate in the U.S. (or a like land), so yous'll likely end upwardly well into the range where more income has almost no effect on your happiness.

Are there exceptions to this general rule?

The story might be unlike if you care about money more than most people. If that's true there could be opportunities to gain money that wouldn't be worth information technology for most people, but are for yous.

There'southward empirical back up for this. A small percentage of people say making money is a top priority for them at the start of their careers, and these people exercise turn out to be significantly more satisfied if they go on to brand a lot of it.²⁴ Possibly this is because they enjoy spending money more than others, or maybe information technology's just that checking their income is how they track their success. Unfortunately, people whose main goals require earning money are likewise 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 in a higher place. Likewise, if you live somewhere with an unusually high price of living, you tin can scale up the figures at which money stops helping. Finally, if your friends are condign wealthy and y'all desire to proceed to socialise with them in expensive places, money may also be more valuable for you, though we don't know of any specific studies on this.

Conversely, if none of those utilise, actress income may practise even less for your happiness than these aggregate surveys suggest.

How much does income thing relative to other factors?

If you're educated and in a rich country and then there are other factors that will impact your happiness and satisfaction much more than than actress income.

• Ball & Chernova summate that for the median unmarried individual, the happiness boost produced by marriage is matched only by a 767% increment in accented income, or by an increase in relative income from the 50th to the 88th percentile.²⁵
• They likewise found the boost associated with moving from a health rating of 3 to iv (when health is scored from one to v) is matched only by a 6,531% increase in absolute income, or by a motion from the 50th to the 100th percentile in relative income.
• Being widowed (every bit a woman) or losing your job (equally a human) appears to reduce life satisfaction by most 0.5 points, on a scale of 1-7. Using our estimates higher up, this would be the same as having your income fall or ascension by two thirds.²⁶
• Having a shut friend become happy also seems to increment your chance of being happy a keen deal (at least 10%).²⁷

What does this mean for your career selection?

We call back the message is clear: if yous want a satisfying career, in one case you're earning above nearly $xl,000, don't focus on earning more coin. Instead, focus on the factors we recommend in our article on how to find fulfilling piece of work.

This is widely accustomed by experts in the field. For instance: Timothy Approximate, professor of management at the Academy of Notre Dame, suggests that if yous ultimately care about having a job that'due south satisfying:

You would exist meliorate off weighing other chore attributes higher than pay.

(Though note the possible exceptional weather condition to a higher place.)

What does this hateful for having a positive impact on the world?

Coin can become much farther in the poorest countries. Information technology'due south articulate that higher incomes do good people in serious poverty. If the relationship between income and satisfaction is logarithmic, or even more sharply failing, you need 50-100 times as much money to increment the satisfaction and happiness of an educated American as that of someone in the poorest billion people.²⁸

This is i of the main reasons we call back that if y'all want to help people alive today, it's important to focus on the effects your actions have on those in the developing world. That's truthful whether nosotros're talking about giving to charity, enacting policy reform, or setting up a social enterprise. Their welfare is just much more responsive to changes in income.²⁹

You may have greater cognition of your local community, only that's probably non enough to brand up for the fact that your resources could become one hundred times as far if you focus on the very poorest people. And fortunately there is high quality inquiry you lot tin can rely on to know what actually works in the developing world. One of the top opportunities is just directly giving money to the very poor.

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

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

Moreover, donating coin is not at notwithstanding as non earning it in the first identify. Someone with an income that'due south low relative to what they aspire to may feel unsuccessful, and therefore unsatisfied with their life. Simply if you earn a practiced salary and donate a large chunk, you probably won't experience that way. On the contrary – y'all'll run across yourself as successfully striving to brand your marking on the world.

There's considerable show that acts of altruism make u.s. happier, more than satisfied and even healthier. This includes acts of charity, as well as other ways of helping people such as buying gifts for friends and family.

This means that altruistic money could hands make you lot happier than spending information technology on yourself.

For instance:

Imagine the following scenario. You are a participant in a psychological experiment: you are given an envelope containing a small sum of coin, which you are asked to spend inside 24 hours. The experimenter can assign y'all to i of conditions: she can crave that yous spend the money 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 altruistic the money to charity).

…the experimenters found that subjects in the prosocial spending condition reported greater happiness after spending their windfall than did those in the personal spending status. This was not an isolated result. Dunn et al. also conducted a longitudinal study of 16 employees at a Boston based company who received a profit-sharing bonus, finding that those who devoted more than of their bonus to prosocial spending experienced greater happiness as a result of spending their windfall; a cantankerous-sectional report 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 by the Gallup Organization, to run across whether ratings of subjective wellbeing were positively correlated with altruistic to clemency. Controlling for household income, it was found, in 122 of the 136 countries, that there is a positive correlation betwixt subjective wellbeing and answering Yes to the question 'Accept you lot donated money to charity in the last month?' On average, it was found, "altruistic to charity has a similar relationship to subjective wellbeing as a doubling of household income."

We worry that concluding issue is confounded past religion: membership of a church both predicts charitable giving and college welfare. But at that place's adept reason to recollect that giving abroad money will lower your subjective well-beingness significantly less than not having it in the starting time place.

Of form, this tin can't justify any level of donations. As is the case for everything else we spend our coin on, the selfish benefits we get from donations will feel declining marginal returns: giving $2,000 won't be twice as fulfilling every bit giving $one,000. And, in accord with the logarithmic returns to spending described higher up, the more money you donate, the more valuable is each incremental dollar of other personal consumption you're surrender.

Nonetheless, I'd expect a moderate level of giving to atomic number 82 to a similarly happy life as no giving, especially if you lot make your donations frequent and highly salient, so that y'all can relish the satisfaction that comes along with believing yous're helping others.

The bottom line

You have probably heard both from people who say earning a good income is both incredibly important, and non of import at all. Every bit is often the case when you await carefully at the evidence, the truth seems to be somewhere in between.

Unfortunately, existing research is non proficient plenty to say for sure what touch on a randomly assigned increase in income has on someone'south welfare. Hopefully more than thorough research on lottery winners will reply this question in the time to come. Only until and then we at least have a lot of information on how people who earn both a lot and a picayune study feeling about their lives.

If you're poor, having fifty-fifty small amounts of extra money is associated with meaning gains in welfare. People in very poor countries study depression levels of satisfaction with their lives, though their day-to-day happiness is surprisingly resilient.

But about of our readers are university graduates in rich countries, the group that is least likely to benefit from higher income. For them, making a meaningful contribution to their club and having good relationships with friends and family are likely to practise them more good than a higher paying chore. Inasmuch as earning more means sacrificing these things it's a very questionable merchandise.

If yous'd like to acquire more well-nigh how to have a career that makes you both happy and fulfilled sign up to our newsletter and nosotros'll update you lot on our latest research each calendar month.

You tin can also proceed reading our guide to finding a career that makes you truly happy.

---

Appendix I – But I've always been told we just expect at relative rather than accented income?

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

You may have heard of the 'Easterlin Paradox': why don't people go much happier when their country becomes richer? The popular explanation in the 70s and 80s was this: people are briefly happy when their income rises, and happier when they are richer than others around them, simply don't value information technology in the long term when their state as a whole becomes richer.^thirty

The findings in the mail in a higher place cast serious doubt on whether there is whatsoever paradox to explicate. People in richer countries are somewhat more satisfied.

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

In the nowadays analysis we demonstrate that these conflicting results arise chiefly from disruptive a short-term positive happiness – income association, due to fluctuations in macroeconomic weather condition, with the long-term relationship. We propose, speculatively, that this disparity betwixt the short and long-term association is due to the social psychological phenomenon of "loss aversion".

In response, Wolfers and Stevenson updated their newspaper to await at how economical growth relates to satisfaction growth over the longest timescales they could analyse.^{3 33} Examining the figures in their paper, the ii do seem to motility together, though there's a lot of other variation. This is to exist expected. When you try to chronicle growth rates in 2 things, in that location is a lot of room for measurement error: in baseline income, final income, baseline satisfaction, and final satisfaction. You measure all of these imperfectly, creating a lot of noise that obscures any shared motion they have. Furthermore, no one claims economic growth is the only, or even near important thing, determining shifts in happiness.

Wolfers and Stevenson explain the disagreement this mode:

…you should never confuse absence of bear witness with testify of absence. Easterlin'due south mistake is to conclude that when a correlation is statistically insignificant, it must be zero. But if you lot put together a dataset with just a few countries in it – or in Easterlin'southward analysis, take a dataset with lots of countries, but throw away a bunch of it, and discard inconvenient observations – and so y'all'll typically find statistically insignificant results. This is fifty-fifty more problematic when y'all employ statistical techniques that don't extract all of the information from your data. Think well-nigh it this manner: if y'all flip a coin three times, and it comes upwardly heads all three times, you still don't have much reason to recollect that the coin is biased. But it would be light-headed to say, "there's no compelling evidence that the coin is biased, then information technology must be fair." Yet that'southward Easterlin's logic.

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

The nearly famous [unresolved puzzle] is the Easterlin paradox that in spite of the positive effect of income on life evaluation and on happiness, at that place appears to have been picayune consequence 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'due south counter-evidence rests heavily on long-run Chinese data of dubious comparability. This literature typically does not brand the stardom between evaluative and hedonic measures that is so of import here.

Equally an aside, ane paper attempts to explicate the failure of Chinese happiness to rise with reference to much college air pollution.³⁵

This question isn't fully resolved, but we're more convinced past Wolfers and Stevenson's latest (draft) paper on the topic, which shows a combination of positive and neutral relationships and offers several explanations for why others have not establish the same results.³⁶ The arguments come down to methodological details that are tricky to explain, then if you'd like to explore them I recommend reading the discussion section of the paper.

In that location's as well a common sense argument that we find compelling: if richer countries are more satisfied than poorer ones, which seems to be the case, it would be remarkable if countries didn't become somewhen more satisfied later they got richer, whatever the cause of the relationship between them. I doubtable past studies were but not adept enough to pick upwardly the outcome.

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 as pollution, made economic evolution a pretty ineffective style to increase day-to-mean solar day happiness – at least until countries had been wealthy long plenty to fix up those issues and invest their higher income in other changes that make them happy.³⁷ Unfortunately, the data on this question is more express and hasn't been the focus of so much research.

Savor this? There's much more than where that came from.

Join our newsletter and get updates on our latest enquiry:

hohmandoperis.blogspot.com

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

Bagikan Artikel ini