Usually people’s conception falls into either “money buys happiness” or “money doesn’t buy happiness”. The former is treated as the naïve, greedy view; the latter the enlightened view.
Sorry to disappoint, but the research doesn’t support the enlightened view of money. On average, more money translates to higher life satisfaction. All the headlines to the contrary mistake the inflection point where more money has diminishing returns with a hypothetical money↔satisfaction ceiling (which doesn’t exist).
While “money buys happiness” is the lens through which headlines and studies look at the role of money, I don’t find it the most useful viewpoint as an individual. Instead treat money as a generalized tool that solves problems. Most of these “problems” are banal, such as the need for food and shelter. But it also includes more abstract pursuits, such as the need for social status and stimulation.
What I like about this viewpoint is that it highlights perhaps the biggest pitfall with getting more money: attempting to use it to solve all your problems. Sure, money can’t buy love, but it goes a lot farther than people give it credit for, especially if you have imagination. The problem with using money to solve all your problems isn’t that it doesn’t generally work, it’s that solving problems yourself is a core life need. A life without challenge becomes quickly meaningless.
When you are poor, you have little choice over the problems you have to deal with. Your car has a bad starter motor? You get to learn how to replace it over the weekend or you lose your job on Monday. With more money, you pay someone to fix your car and it’s probably not even a big deal if you don’t show up to the office on Monday. When used wisely, having money gives you the freedom to choose what problems you tackle. That is what money can do for you.