06-024 · EVIDENCE B · SOURCE-SENSITIVE

Don’t spend extra money to “move up a rung” among your peers by buying a new house, car, or social circle

不要为了「在周围人里往上挪一档」多花钱换房、换车、换圈子

Source cost

No cost at all. All you need to do is ask one extra question before increasing your budget: is this extra expense buying a real product, or simply securing a higher status among your peers? The difficulty lies in resisting the urge to upgrade when everyone else does.

Source return

When comparing people with similar incomes, those whose neighbors earn more report lower happiness levels. This effect appears only among neighbors with comparable education and frequent social interaction. Thus, spending extra money to move into a neighborhood where everyone is wealthier actually pushes you down the social ladder. Yet when incomes rise across the board, people still feel better off, so absolute levels of happiness remain relevant.

Evidence grade

B

THE LOW-ROI DETOURSatire, not advice

Move “Don’t spend extra money to “move up a rung” among your peers by buying a new house, car, or social circle” to Future Me's calendar

The excuse

There is no immediate alarm, so the sensible choice can wait for a less busy week.

What feels good now

Today I keep a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.

What the source says

The source summarizes the return this way: “When comparing people with similar incomes, those whose neighbors earn more report lower happiness levels. This effect appears only among neighbors with comparable education and frequent social interaction. Thus, spending extra money to move into a neighborhood where everyone is wealthier actually pushes you down the social ladder. Yet when incomes rise across the board, people still feel better off, so absolute levels of happiness remain relevant.” Evidence grade B. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.

THE ENGLISH EDITION

Original recommendation and evidence

Source commit a994b6a0c905

24. Don’t spend extra money to “move up a rung” among your peers by buying a new house, car, or social circle

Cost: No cost at all. All you need to do is ask one extra question before increasing your budget: is this extra expense buying a real product, or simply securing a higher status among your peers? The difficulty lies in resisting the urge to upgrade when everyone else does.

In plain terms: When comparing people with similar incomes, those whose neighbors earn more report lower happiness levels. This effect appears only among neighbors with comparable education and frequent social interaction. Thus, spending extra money to move into a neighborhood where everyone is wealthier actually pushes you down the social ladder. Yet when incomes rise across the board, people still feel better off, so absolute levels of happiness remain relevant.

Benefit: The National Survey of Family and Households (NSFH) in the U.S. surveyed the same individuals twice. Researchers matched these results with local average incomes calculated from a 5% sample of the 1990 census. After adjusting for personal characteristics and income, they found that higher neighbor incomes correlate strongly with lower self-reported happiness. This effect holds across multiple analytical methods and remains highly statistically significant. In fact, the drop in happiness caused by a rise in neighbor incomes matches the drop produced by a comparable fall in one’s own income. Even after controlling for individual-level factors or limiting comparisons to the same state and survey round, the pattern persists. This rules out explanations such as happier people naturally moving to poorer areas, unmeasured state-level variables, or differences between renters and homeowners. The effect is strongest among individuals with close neighbor ties, while those who socialize mainly outside their community show no such trend. Happiness declines only when comparing with neighbors of similar education; income differences among less educated neighbors have little impact. The mechanism appears to work mainly through satisfaction with one’s material circumstances rather than other life domains. Finally, when both personal and neighbor incomes rise proportionally, overall happiness still increases.

Evidence grade: B

Sources: Luttmer EFP (2005). Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 963–1002. <https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/120.3.963>; Luttmer EFP (2004). Relative Earnings and Well-Being. NBER Working Paper No. 10667 (The expressions and magnitudes cited in this article are verified verbatim according to this edition). <https://www.nber.org/papers/w10667>

Notes: Several reasons justify a B rating: the data come from repeated surveys of the same participants, this is the sole study of its kind, and the sample is foreign; the measured outcome is self-reported happiness rather than monetary figures. Researchers applied multiple statistical controls, such as within-person comparisons and comparisons limited to the same state and survey round, but the study is still not a randomized trial. No comparable data exist for Chinese populations. The benefit magnitude is classified as “moderate” following the criteria established in section 23 (don’t expect material purchases to boost happiness). The potential savings can indeed reach tens of thousands of yuan; however, because no quantitative link exists between those savings and actual happiness gains, they are not classified as “large.” This advice does not discourage spending on larger homes, quieter neighborhoods, or shorter commutes when those features themselves are valued. What it discourages is spending solely to avoid feeling inferior to colleagues or peers. For guidance on how to prioritize housing choices, see section 4, item 18 (give priority to commute time when selecting a residence). For information on using purchases to improve mood, refer to section 23 (don’t expect material purchases to boost happiness). Regarding the tendency to constantly compare oneself with others online, see section 3, item 20 (don’t make “how others are doing” a daily obsession).

Read the complete Chinese source and notes

24. 不要为了「在周围人里往上挪一档」多花钱换房、换车、换圈子

成本: 不花钱。要做的只是在加预算之前多问一句:这笔加价买的是东西本身,还是我在这群人里的位置。难在周围人都换了的时候,自己不跟。

说人话: 拿收入一样的人来比,邻居挣得越多,这个人报告的幸福感越低。这只发生在学历和自己相同、又常来往的邻居之间。所以为了搬进一个人人都比你宽裕的地方而多花的钱,买到的是把自己往下挪一档。但收入一起涨的时候,人还是觉得更好过,绝对水平仍然算数。

收益: 美国全国家庭与住户调查(NSFH)两轮回访了同一批人。作者把这份数据和本地平均收入对上。本地平均收入(PUMA)是按 1990 年人口普查 5% 抽样推算出来的。把本人收入和一系列个人特征都扣掉之后,结果是:邻居收入越高,自己报告的幸福感越低。这个效应大,换一种算法也稳,而且高度显著。作者的表述是,「邻居收入上升」和「本人收入下降同样幅度」带来的幸福感下降处于同一数量级。改成同一个人前后自己跟自己比之后(这叫加个体固定效应),系数方向不变、大小也相近,只是显著性降到了 10% 的水平。再限定在同一个州、同一轮调查之间比(这叫加州和调查轮次的固定效应),结果基本不变。这说明它不是「爱搬去穷地方的人本来就更快乐」造成的,也不是州一级某些没测到的因素造成的。效应在常和邻居来往的人身上更强,在只和社区外朋友来往的人身上不显著。租房的人和自己有房的人没有差异,这一点不支持「贵地方房价高,所以实际可花的钱少」这种解释。幸福感只随学历相同的邻居的收入而下降,对学历不同的邻居的收入几乎没有反应。而且它主要是通过「对自己物质处境的满意度」传过去的,不是通过对家庭生活等其他方面的满意度。最后,如果本人和邻居的收入按同样比例一起上升,幸福感仍然上升

证据等级: B

来源: Luttmer EFP (2005). Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(3), 963–1002. <https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/120.3.963>;Luttmer EFP (2004). Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being. NBER Working Paper No. 10667(本条引用的表述与数量级按这一版逐字核对). <https://www.nber.org/papers/w10667>

备注: 定 B 级的理由有几条:数据来自反复回访同一批人的问卷,只有这一项研究,样本又在国外;看的结果是受访者自己报的幸福感,不是钱。作者确实用统计手段排掉了几类干扰,比如同一个人前后比、同一个州同一轮之间比,但终究不是随机试验。中国人群也没有可以引用的同类数据。收益量级定「中」,是沿用本节第 23 条(别指望买东西改善心情)的口径。省下的钱确实可能到万元级。但「省下这笔钱能换来多少幸福感」没有数字支撑,所以不按万元级记成「大」。这里不反对为更大的房子、更安静的小区、更短的通勤花钱,那些买的是东西本身。要拦的是「同事都换了,我不能比他们差」这一个理由。住处该按什么排序见第 4 节第 18 条(选住处时把通勤时长放在前面)。买东西调情绪见本节第 23 条(别指望买东西改善心情)。在网上老往上比见第 3 节第 20 条(别把「别人过得怎么样」当每日必读)

Author's scope notes: 定 B 级的理由有几条:数据来自反复回访同一批人的问卷,只有这一项研究,样本又在国外;看的结果是受访者自己报的幸福感,不是钱。作者确实用统计手段排掉了几类干扰,比如同一个人前后比、同一个州同一轮之间比,但终究不是随机试验。中国人群也没有可以引用的同类数据。收益量级定「中」,是沿用本节第 23 条(别指望买东西改善心情)的口径。省下的钱确实可能到万元级。但「省下这笔钱能换来多少幸福感」没有数字支撑,所以不按万元级记成「大」。这里不反对为更大的房子、更安静的小区、更短的通勤花钱,那些买的是东西本身。要拦的是「同事都换了,我不能比他们差」这一个理由。住处该按什么排序见第 4 节第 18 条(选住处时把通勤时长放在前面)。买东西调情绪见本节第 23 条(别指望买东西改善心情)。在网上老往上比见第 3 节第 20 条(别把「别人过得怎么样」当每日必读)

YOUR PRIVATE LIST

Choose what to do with this idea

Related source entries

Original content by eternity4719 under CC BY 4.0. English translation is credited in the source notes. HowToLiveWorse adds a clearly labeled satirical response.

Full source and adaptation notes