![A Knives Out Mystery Review – Benoit Blanc's Most Elaborate Case Yet [TIFF 2025]](https://internewscast.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/A-Knives-Out-Mystery-Review-–-Benoit-Blancs-Most-Elaborate-200x110.jpg)
Share this @internewscast.com
Over the next ten years, Elon Musk might become the world’s inaugural trillionaire. The Tesla board has suggested a remarkable $1.5 trillion compensation package if Musk achieves a series of bold growth objectives.
Australia’s executive salaries are not quite on that magnitude. Nonetheless, it was recently reported that outgoing Virgin CEO Jayne Hrdlicka will receive nearly $50 million in shares and other financial perks as she departs.
Research from the US indicates that individuals believe the average CEO earns tenfold more than the average worker — though they’d rather it be closer to fivefold.
Actually, the real disparity in the US in the last decade has been estimated to mean CEOs take home an astonishing 265 to 300 times more than average American workers.
Australians think CEOs earn seven times more than the average worker and would prefer if it was only three times more.
The disparity here is also significant. A lengthy study disclosed that CEOs of the top 100 Australian companies earned 55 times more than average workers last financial year.
So, how much money is enough?
People have asked this question for thousands of years. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle explained the idea of eudaimonia, or a roadmap of “living well”, saying it “belongs more to those who have cultivated their character and mind to the uttermost, and kept acquisition of external goods within moderate limits, than it does to those who have managed to acquire more external goods than they can possibly use, and are lacking goods of the soul.”
Aristotle’s philosophy doesn’t call on us to shun money or wealth entirely, but argues it shouldn’t become life’s sole focus.
Research over recent decades has come to different conclusions on how much money is needed to achieve peak well-being.
A US study in 2010 suggested well-being maxes out around US$75,000. This figure naturally needs to be increased today to account for inflation — which, if those research findings are still true today, would be closer to AU$167,000 in today’s dollars. You’d also need to take into account the cost of living in your area.
Other findings suggest well-being may continually increase with growing wealth, but the increase in well-being from $1 million to $10 million is likely less than when someone moves from poverty to middle class.
A 2022 experiment studied 200 people from Brazil, Indonesia, Kenya, Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom who were randomly given US$10,000 (A$15,000 at today’s exchange rate).
It found people in lower-income countries “exhibited happiness gains three times larger than those in higher-income countries”, including Australia. But that cash still provided detectable benefits for people with household incomes up to $184,000 today.
Remarkably, the people in that experiment gave away more than two-thirds of that money to family, friends, strangers and charities.
Valuing time and relationships
Decades of international research have consistently shown that materialistic goals — acquiring wealth and possessions for reasons associated with image and status — undermine wellbeing.
This is because materialistic striving is often borne out of low self-esteem or tending to compare oneself negatively to others, and there is always someone else to compare yourself against.
People can get stuck on the “hedonic treadmill”, where they get used to their new level of wealth and the luxuries it provides and then need more to feel happy.
It’s also because the work needed to acquire that wealth can mean less time focusing on hobbies and with loved ones.
Harvard research tracking two generations of men and their children over their lives, going back to 1938, shows deep, meaningful relationships with others are key to mental and physical well-being.
American psychologist Abraham Maslow developed a “hierarchy” of people’s “needs” in 1943. This suggested “self-actualisation” — reaching your pinnacle of personal growth — starts by having enough money to cover the basics of food, shelter, and access to the opportunities needed to grow as a person.
Consistent with these findings, research has shown that “time affluence” (increasing free time by outsourcing tasks you prefer not to do) and “experiential buying” (such as dining out with loved ones or going on vacations) can enhance well-being by enabling the development of new skills, fostering relationships, and creating lasting memories.
It’s in most of our interests to close the wealth gap
Recent data shows that economic inequality in Australia is increasing. This is particularly affecting young Australians, as housing becomes less affordable.
At a broader social level, research from the UK indicates that as inequality increases, social outcomes get worse. These include increased crime, drug and alcohol abuse, obesity as people struggle to afford nutritious food, and reductions in social trust.
What percentage of wealth do you think is owned by the richest 20 per cent of Australians? And in your ideal Australia, how much wealth should the richest 20 per cent own?
The most recent Bureau of Statistics data we have, from 2019-20, showed the richest 20 per cent of Australians owned around 62 per cent of our wealth.
As inequality gets worse, evidence suggests it will lead to social problems that threaten to undermine the well-being of the whole community.
The irony is those who pursue extreme wealth and benefit most from this inequality will not necessarily be happier or more fulfilled because of it.
Brad Elphinstone does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
