Happine$$?

I was watching a TED video on happiness by a world famous behavior scientist named Daniel Kahneman (link: http://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_kahneman_the_riddle_of_experience_vs_memory.html, the video is very cool and does the topic much more justice than I do.) and he talked about a Gallup Poll he participating in creating that asked about the happiness of people relative to their wealth. Now the entire video as a whole was incredibly interesting in referencing the last blog assignment, in dealing with how we value our lives, which experiences we find valuable, and how we view them in memory. In reference to the poll, however, the happiness of those making under $60,000 a year clearly diminished the further down the income scale you went. However, after $60,000 a year, the line is flat. This reminded me of one of the experiences which I had hoped to have that I talked about in my blog, which was being ultra-wealthy to perhaps experiences what Eighton called a "transience of material being." It seems however, from a quantitative standpoint, that the "happiness" which money can buy, and perhaps the needs that it can fulfill, only last up to a certain point. A relatively low point when you think about the happiness that is normally associated with huge yachts and private islands of the billionaires, in comparison with those who have an income of $60,000. What is represented here, which changed my thinking about the matter of wealth and happiness, is a need for something more than material wealth at a point when just basic aesthetic needs are met. I'm not entirely sure what the flat lining of happiness at a very specific monetary number means. The value and functionality of $60,000 is different from person to person, and from single person to couple to family of six, however an interesting and witty observation of the lecturer was that, "money does not buy you experiential happiness, but not having money certainly buys you misery."