I don't fall into the "never have to work again" category, but I can speak from some experience. I am 24, and the company I work for was acquired for a very large sum of money. Being one of the very early developers, the stock option payout was substantial. To be honest, it was all luck. I lucked into the job, as my first one out of college, and it happened to be successful. Some days I like to think I contributed to the success of the company, and while I am sure I did, the fact is that the company won the lottery and is one of the few success stories.
The really interesting thing is how little the windfall of money actually affected my day to day. I still drive the same car, and live in a normal sized home. I guess the difference is that I have zero debt, and a substantial sum of money in an investment account that I am not sure what I will do with. I work at a different company now, and still do the normal 9-5, even though I could take years off work if I wanted to.
I am really happy in life, and I don't attribute it to the money at all. I find it really difficult to explain how your life view changes. The most interesting thing I have observed is that once you have "enough" money, any more than that can just be a burden. What do I do with all this? Why am I paying more in taxes than I used to make? My best advice is to work towards making enough, where you aren't worried about money and are comfortable, and then pursue things that make you happy in life, because a few million won't be it.
This is an example of the Hedonic Treadmill [0]. At first glance, winning the lottery should increase your happiness compared to becoming paraplegic but after a few months the happiness level seems to go back to the baseline in both case anyway.
Sure, after 8 weeks, their happiness was equalized, but what about after 8 years, or a lifetime?
How many more positive experiences does having money unlock (innumerable) compared to how many positive experiences does being disabled prevent from happening (also innumerable)? Over a longer timescale, the differences between the momentum of good experiences versus the stagnation of having most of human activity inaccessible intuitively add up to be pretty large.
A good study would be to measure the happiness of paraplegics who won the lottery.
The Wikipedia article mentions further study showing that in some important disability cases, yes, indeed, the "happiness baseline" could move.
> In his archival data analysis, Lucas found evidence that it is possible for someone’s subjective well-being set point to change drastically, such as in the case of individuals who acquire a severe, long term disability.[15] However, as Diener, Lucas, and Scollon point out, the amount of fluctuation a person experiences around their set point is largely dependent on the individual’s ability to adapt
But what I find interesting is the overall underlying argument that for most people, we have a happiness baseline that is only slightly moved by external events.
"Happy experiences" is way to subjective for your argument to apply. For example, someone who becomes a paraplegic could actually be happier after becoming a paraplegic because they may appreciate life more, and thus be happier during the same experiences they had before.
You're not considering that the 'positive experiences' for someone who won the lottery vs. someone who is paraplegic are vastly different.
Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is there any Evidence of Satiation?
"Many scholars have argued that once 'basic needs' have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple definitions of 'basic needs' and multiple questions about well-being, we find no support for this claim. The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it."
"is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise"
That is inconsistent. What I believe they are trying to say is that there is no sharp cut-off. If the relationship is always roughly linear-log, then it always diminishes as incomes rise.
The really interesting thing is how little the windfall of money actually affected my day to day. I still drive the same car, and live in a normal sized home. I guess the difference is that I have zero debt, and a substantial sum of money in an investment account that I am not sure what I will do with. I work at a different company now, and still do the normal 9-5, even though I could take years off work if I wanted to.
I am really happy in life, and I don't attribute it to the money at all. I find it really difficult to explain how your life view changes. The most interesting thing I have observed is that once you have "enough" money, any more than that can just be a burden. What do I do with all this? Why am I paying more in taxes than I used to make? My best advice is to work towards making enough, where you aren't worried about money and are comfortable, and then pursue things that make you happy in life, because a few million won't be it.