Can love and friendship replace money?

[brainstorm]

Considering that economic recession has been on the agenda for years now, I was asking myself if anything can adequately comfort people in the absence of money and material consumption. The only possibility I could come up with is love and friendship.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Love, friendship and justice, hehe.

It's a very difficult question that you're posing. I mean, no amount of hugs and kisses will let you keep your house if the bank's set on taking it. But of course human relationships is as important as ever in times of difficulty. And I certainly don't think that excessive material consumption makes someone "happy".

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't recommend consuming your friends.

 

[brainstorm]

Love, friendship and justice, hehe.

It's a very difficult question that you're posing. I mean, no amount of hugs and kisses will let you keep your house if the bank's set on taking it. But of course human relationships is as important as ever in times of difficulty. And I certainly don't think that excessive material consumption makes someone "happy".

Well, the foreclosures are a temporary loss. After people get kicked out of their house, the process to find someone who CAN pay. If it turns out eventually that no one can pay, the price has to go down or the house will stay empty indefinitely.

So, my question isn't so much whether love or friendship can console people losing their house, although it definitely helps when looking for a new place to stay:) My question is more when the savings deposits that funded the purchase of foreclosed properties are finally accepted to be lost/defunct, and the economy is that much poorer as a result of the lost income and spending, will love and friendship be an adequate compensation for the lost material comforts and privileges that people can no longer afford?

 

[imiyakawa]

For me, a perfectly fine substitute would be knowledge. If I was given the choice of a hundred billion dollars OR being dirt poor and acquiring 2% of the knowledge of a far advanced civilization (perhaps if I could pick one area where they'd elucidate their theories/knowledge to the fullest), I'd pick the latter.

 

[Kerrie]

Considering that economic recession has been on the agenda for years now, I was asking myself if anything can adequately comfort people in the absence of money and material consumption. The only possibility I could come up with is love and friendship.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

If love and friendship don't adequately comfort those grieving over the loss of money and homes, certainly this recession is testing it-which in turn can give way to a stronger friendship/love, or one that is broken even more.

For me personally, money cannot replace the feeling of true love and friendships. Real love and friendships don't cost a penny.

 

[Borg]

@OP: Sooooo, people in poor countries don't have love and friendship?

 

[brainstorm]

@OP: Sooooo, people in poor countries don't have love and friendship?

Strawmanning can be so irritating. You are implying that I said that wealth is a pre-requisite for love and friendship. The OP was a question about whether love and friendship could adequately replace relative material deprivation. E.g. could someone go from living in a 300k house to a 100k house and be equally happy because of love and friendship? What about going from wearing high-status clothes to low-status clothes, or from driving a new car to having an old one or even riding the bus? For many people, the status of their peers is a pre-requisite for love/friendship, which is why many people work to achieve so much status and wealth. However, if people were able to give and receive love/friendship independently of status and wealth conditions, immaterial things could theoretically reduce the need for material ones, at least to some extent.

 

[Borg]

Strawmanning can be so irritating. You are implying that I said that wealth is a pre-requisite for love and friendship. The OP was a question about whether love and friendship could adequately replace relative material deprivation. E.g. could someone go from living in a 300k house to a 100k house and be equally happy because of love and friendship? What about going from wearing high-status clothes to low-status clothes, or from driving a new car to having an old one or even riding the bus? For many people, the status of their peers is a pre-requisite for love/friendship, which is why many people work to achieve so much status and wealth. However, if people were able to give and receive love/friendship independently of status and wealth conditions, immaterial things could theoretically reduce the need for material ones, at least to some extent.

I wasn't attempting to create a strawman argument. The wording in your original post looked like that was what you were saying.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

 

[brainstorm]

I wasn't attempting to create a strawman argument. The wording in your original post looked like that was what you were saying.

Ok, I see what happened. You took my faux answer as the thing that I was claiming as the truth. I think I read something a long time ago about how love was only possible with a certain level of wealth. It basically argued that impoverished people are incapable of experiencing love. There may be some truth in this. Deprivation does make people pretty grumpy. However, I think there's something else going on in high-consumption, high-status life where wealth is used, maybe sub-consciously, as a pre-requisite for love and friendship to prevent forming social bonds with people who won't increase your prosperity and/or support you in a certain level of consumption/lifestyle. In other words, love/friendship isn't a substitute for prosperity - it is a means of attaining it and consuming it. I'm wondering if there is an alternative to this culture of materialism for people who live this way.

 

[Borg]

Ok, I see what happened. You took my faux answer as the thing that I was claiming as the truth. I think I read something a long time ago about how love was only possible with a certain level of wealth. It basically argued that impoverished people are incapable of experiencing love. There may be some truth in this. Deprivation does make people pretty grumpy. However, I think there's something else going on in high-consumption, high-status life where wealth is used, maybe sub-consciously, as a pre-requisite for love and friendship to prevent forming social bonds with people who won't increase your prosperity and/or support you in a certain level of consumption/lifestyle. In other words, love/friendship isn't a substitute for prosperity - it is a means of attaining it and consuming it. I'm wondering if there is an alternative to this culture of materialism for people who live this way.

How is someone not supposed to interpret this as people in poor countries don't have love?

 

[brainstorm]

How is someone not supposed to interpret this as people in poor countries don't have love?

For one thing, being "in a poor country" isn't the same thing as living in poverty. Countries can be labeled as poor and still have people living there experiencing various levels of wealth and prosperity. The point is that you have to dissect the hypothesis down to the level of particular influences to analyze it. You can't just hover at the level of populations or categories and generalize about averages. You have to identify factors that affect human interactions and how interactions affect other things.

 

[Mr.Penguin]

Considering that economic recession has been on the agenda for years now, I was asking myself if anything can adequately comfort people in the absence of money and material consumption. The only possibility I could come up with is love and friendship.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

Buddy, if that thought even crossed your mind, you sir have never truly experienced love. Trust me, love and friendship surpasses all else and will make you happy. It is true that material fortune comforts a person, but it doesn't take money to be happy. Go take a walk with a friend and crack some jokes. No money there. Or telling your wife you love her. No money, and a whole bunch of happiness. You know the saying, "Money can't buy happiness?"
Or the advice, "A dream isn't worth it if it is not shared with someone you love?" Even The Princess and the Frog says that much!

Mr.Penguin

 

[Evo]

Actually money can buy a HUGE amount of happiness. Most divorces, IIRC, can be tied to financial problems.

No fleeting love has ever done as much for me as money.

 

[arildno]

Unfortunately, many crackpot, Foucauldian historians today DO argue roughly that "love didn't exist" before the coming of the bourgoisie in the 17th century.

Even worse, they are regarded as the chic'est of the chic, who have "deconstructed" yet another capitalist notion.

 

[cesiumfrog]

brainstorm, never heard of the "psychic pay"? Plenty of people find themselves happier choosing the job that provides a smaller pay-check if it involves greater personal appreciation by other people.

A controlled experiment was done, where some child care centres introduced a fine for parents who collect their children late. The result was lateness increased (and the discrepancy persisted after the policy was removed). Apparently parents valued the extra childcare higher than the fine. So why had the parents been more punctual to child care facilities previously and in the control group, without any financial compensation for the personal cost of their punctuality? It seems they attributed the personal regard of the workers an even higher value than the extra childcare. (This is described in a talk on the TED front page a.t.mo')

Haven't there been plenty of small communities that have indeed done away with money entirely?

Actually money can buy a HUGE amount of happiness. [..] No fleeting love has ever done as much for me as money.

I'm sorry.

Unfortunately, many crackpot, Foucauldian historians today DO argue roughly that "love didn't exist" before the coming of the bourgoisie in the 17th century.

Isn't it a recent luxury for most to date according to personal whim rather than having family-arranged marriages?

 

[brainstorm]

Isn't it a recent luxury for most to date according to personal whim rather than having family-arranged marriages?

Try this: cut your budget to the absolute minimum you can for a year or two. Stop buying everything except basic nutritional food. Move to the lowest-priced housing you can find. Wear only 2nd hand clothes. Avoid any and every possible expenditure. Live homeless if you can. Basically, deprive yourself of every possible expenditure you can without dying.

Then, try to get a date or make friends. Report back to this thread.

 

[DaveC426913]

Try this: cut your budget to the absolute minimum you can for a year or two. Stop buying everything except basic nutritional food. Move to the lowest-priced housing you can find. Wear only 2nd hand clothes. Avoid any and every possible expenditure. Live homeless if you can. Basically, deprive yourself of every possible expenditure you can without dying.

Then, try to get a date or make friends. Report back to this thread.

I am not getting the connection between his comment and yours.

 

[brainstorm]

I am not getting the connection between his comment and yours.

Mine refers to an empirical test of how easy or difficult it is to cultivate love and/or friendship in the absence of money and its effects. I am describing an experiment that attempts to neutralize the effects of money-spending as much as possible on a person's self-presentation and examine what the social effects are on her/his ability to cultivate love and/or friendship. The question was whether love/friendship is possible in the absence of a certain level of material prosperity.

 

[DaveC426913]

Mine refers to an empirical test of how easy or difficult it is to cultivate love and/or friendship in the absence of money and its effects. I am describing an experiment that attempts to neutralize the effects of money-spending as much as possible on a person's self-presentation and examine what the social effects are on her/his ability to cultivate love and/or friendship. The question was whether love/friendship is possible in the absence of a certain level of material prosperity.

Oh. I see. I didn't see how it followed a comment about arranged marriage versus choose-your-own.


BTW, does you experiment give consideration to whether or not every potential date (i.e. most of society) is also poverty-stricken? Surely, if we are all peasants, the playing field is leveled.

 

[brainstorm]

Oh. I see. I didn't see how it followed a comment about arranged marriage versus choose-your-own.

If you had read the quote, you would have seen which post it was in reference to.

BTW, does you experiment give consideration to whether or not every potential date (i.e. most of society) is also poverty-stricken? Surely, if we are all peasants, the playing field is leveled.

I assume you're defining poverty in relative rather than absolute terms. If you look closely at the "poverty-stricken" people you claim are looking for other "paupers" to date, I bet you would see that there's a lot of selectivity according to what a prospective mate has to offer materially. Someone living unemployed in public housing is probably more interested in dating someone else in a similar situation than a person who is completely homeless. To a middle-class person, living in public housing unemployed may not seem to be a mark of distinction but having the means to bath at will is a giant asset when it comes to garnering friendship and potential love, imo.

 

[cesiumfrog]

Try this: cut your budget to the absolute minimum you can for a year or two. Stop buying everything except basic nutritional food. Move to the lowest-priced housing you can find. Wear only 2nd hand clothes. Avoid any and every possible expenditure. Live homeless if you can. Basically, deprive yourself of every possible expenditure you can without dying.

Then, try to get a date or make friends. Report back to this thread.

Dude, I'm a PhD student: I patch my clothes myself rather than buy others when they wear out. I can report back successfully, dating lead to permanent relationship. Usually I don't like to see anyone argue a point using anecdotal evidence, but here you chose me in advance as the example to rest your case on. (But I too can't see how this was pertinent to the part of my reply which you quoted. And your attitude regarding friendship and money seems horribly superficial.)

 

[brainstorm]

Dude, I'm a PhD student. I patch my clothes myself rather than buy others when they wear out. I can report back successfully, dating lead to permanent relationship. Usually I don't like to see anyone argue a point using anecdotal evidence, but here you chose me in advance as the example to rest your case on. (But I agree with others; I can't see how this related to the part of my reply which you quoted.)

Are you saying that you are unaware of all the marks of distinction you carry relative to someone living homeless who is NOT in a PhD program? Or do you think that such marks are invisible and someone who chooses to befriend or date you is choosing to do so the same as if they were choosing between two homeless people of indistinguishable poverty and material potential?

 

[n.karthick]

If your love and friendship can give you money then yes.

 

[Mr.Penguin]

Can love and friendship be replaced by money? Let's say that you were the richest person in the world and that you could get anything you wanted just by asking for it. You might be proud, and think yourself to be happy, but would you really experience love or happiness at that stage in life? Would then somebody choose you because of love or material gain?

Trust me, everyone wants something from life and to be able to be well off and content in their lives, not always wanting to be carrying the burden of a spouse that doesn't ever help pay the bills, and makes it hard for you. YES, material good fortune helps very much in all areas of life, including getting a date, a girlfriend, and maybe eventually a wife. Everyone wants to be well off. Well, most of us. I have seen some people that just made me wonder if...ah...well.
The bottom line is this, money will help, but money isn't everything.
Hope this helped.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you had read the quote, you would have seen which post it was in reference to.

You misunderstand. I got what you were referring to; I didn't get the connection as to how your comment logically followed from his. They didn't seem related. But your clarification ... clarified it.

I assume you're defining poverty in relative rather than absolute terms. If you look closely at the "poverty-stricken" people you claim are looking for other "paupers" to date, I bet you would see that there's a lot of selectivity according to what a prospective mate has to offer materially. Someone living unemployed in public housing is probably more interested in dating someone else in a similar situation than a person who is completely homeless. To a middle-class person, living in public housing unemployed may not seem to be a mark of distinction but having the means to bath at will is a giant asset when it comes to garnering friendship and potential love, imo.

Mm so yes you're factoring in whether it's a level playing field. OK.

 

[DaveC426913]

Neither love nor happiness are guaranteed. So, in general, the more you experience life and explore all it has to offer, the more likely you will find love and/or happiness. (If you're not convinced, consider the corollary: if you are a shut-in, who never leaves home, has no hobbies and doesn't interact socially with people, your chances at either love or happiness or both are greatly restricted.)

Money is a very good way to facilitate these opportunities and experiences.

 

[Desiree]

Money is a very good way to facilitate these opportunities and experiences.

Money is actually destroying these opportunities and experiences and preventing them from happening.

 

[DaveC426913]

Money is actually destroying these opportunities and experiences and preventing them from happening.

The crew - that fly the plane that can take me to Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa - need to eat too. They cannot tend their own fields, since they best contribute to society by flying planes. Flying planes for people let's them trade that service for food. This is a barter system.

Money is nothing but a barter system that uses a common unit.

Can you explain how I can get to Mt. Kilimanjaro (in a month on a tramp steamer I would starve) without bartering with the pilots using our common unit of bartering?

 

[brainstorm]

Neither love nor happiness are guaranteed. So, in general, the more you experience life and explore all it has to offer, the more likely you will find love and/or happiness. (If you're not convinced, consider the corollary: if you are a shut-in, who never leaves home, has no hobbies and doesn't interact socially with people, your chances at either love or happiness or both are greatly restricted.)

Money is a very good way to facilitate these opportunities and experiences.

That's a very important point, imo. This was one of the main points of my original post. I.e. how can love and friendship replace money if money-spending is a condition for the social interactions that lead to love and friendship in the first place.

You may consider that there are public venues where people can interact without spending any money, but how many people avoid such venues precisely because of the class-status of at least some of the people present? Private venues, then, are informally regulated according to various status-markings, such that people feel more comfortable in certain venues because of some level of elitism or exclusivity defined by art, the cultural competencies of clientele, their clothing, etc.

This is starting to sound like Pierre Bourdieu on Distinction, symbolic capital, etc. The fact that people are upwardly mobile, i.e. looking to improve their current economic situation, leads them typically to avoid becoming friends or lovers with someone who appears not to hold the potential for attaining more money and/or higher status than the seeker presently feels they themselves possesses or have to potential to achieve.

The exception would be people who feel overwhelmingly blessed and privileged to the point that they feel that they have room to invest in someone with less potential than themselves. However, this seems to usually involve some kind of selectivity that is like a "purchase" of traits that cannot be directly translated into economic prosperity, such as more marginal forms of beauty or knowledge. Of course, these traits do tend to help people in economic attainment in many cases - but, for example, someone who makes plenty of money but is somewhat lacking in physical attractiveness may be able to win a more attractive partner than they would if they looked the same but had a lower salary. Is this a form of prostitution is the question, imo.

If such a thing as true love/friendship that is its own reward, then other forms of prosperity may fade in terms of interest or marginal utility. Someone who has found true love might find out that the type of car they drive comes to seem less relevant. On the other hand, if someone is afraid of losing love if they fail to maintain a certain image of youth, fashion, status, etc. - they may actually become more concerned about maintain their material status out of fear of losing love/friendship of the people they covet. This is probably a combination of insecurity and the expectation that friendships and love-relationships fail all the time and are, therefore, less dependable than material possessions.

 

[brainstorm]

Money is actually destroying these opportunities and experiences and preventing them from happening.

This is true to the extent that people avoid doing things because of the cost. Probably many people are socially isolated at home because they are trying to avoid losing what little money they have going out.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is true to the extent that people avoid doing things because of the cost. Probably many people are socially isolated at home because they are trying to avoid losing what little money they have going out.

Well, there is no dearth of things one can do that cost very little money; the trouble is that societal pressure and momentum causes us to ignore the free things and concentrate on the things that make other people money.

[EDIT: Ah. I see you've covered that already.]

 

[Dickfore]

I don't recommend consuming your friends.

I don't recommend consuming currency either.

 

[brainstorm]

Well, there is no dearth of things one can do that cost very little money; the trouble is that societal pressure and momentum causes us to ignore the free things and concentrate on the things that make other people money.

Right, and the question is how much selective willingness to engage in friendship/love via the free venues is making money-spending a pre-requisite for making friends and getting dates. Consider just two examples: 1) public parks and 2) clubs with cover charges. Why do people avoid meeting people in public parks but seek to do so in clubs with cover charges?

 

[arildno]

Isn't it a recent luxury for most to date according to personal whim rather than having family-arranged marriages?

No it's not.

Tip:
Hunter-gatherer societies have little overall ability to threaten individuals into permanent relationships they don't like, due to the ease by which an individual might separate itself from the group.

That doesn't mean conjugal harmony&monogamy have been the norms, though..

 

[brainstorm]

Perhaps what this thread should really be about is whether money can be extorted from people through withholding of love and friendship.

In a time of rampant economic stimulus, it would not be so far fetched that social culture become increasingly oriented toward wealth and prosperity as an escape from or hedge against economic loss.

In the same sense that people are willing to trade any and all wealth/possessions for their life when confronted with the ultimatum, many may be similarly driven to spend in an effort to secure new relationships. If people lost previous relationships and friends in an effort to weather bad economic times, buying new friends/love by investing in going out, dating, and other social extravagance could be a last-ditch effort to avoid loneliness.

It could be the invisible hand's method of injecting investment capital into sputtering businesses - i.e. break up their old relationships and send them the message that they won't find new ones until they exhibit a certain degree of prosperity. Who needs socialist redistribution when the free market does it automatically?

 

[cesiumfrog]

Tip: Hunter-gatherer societies have little overall ability to threaten individuals into permanent relationships they don't like, due to the ease by which an individual might separate itself from the group. That doesn't mean conjugal harmony&monogamy have been the norms, though..

That seems quite a jump, from hunter-gatherer to 17th century. (Without necessarily contradicting what you say about the types of relationships that occur in primitive societies though, your justification for it seems naive to the doom of banishment.) Anyway, are you saying that the way relationships occur now (at least in Western societies) is "just a reinvention", or are you actually disputing that arranged marriages were prevalent some centuries ago?

 

[arildno]

That seems quite a jump, from hunter-gatherer to 17th century. (Without necessarily contradicting what you say about the types of relationships that occur in primitive societies though, your justification for it seems naive to the doom of banishment.) Anyway, are you saying that the way relationships occur now (at least in Western societies) is "just a reinvention", or are you actually disputing that arranged marriages were prevalent some centuries ago?

No, I am saying that the societal bonds&strictures some centuries ago have little to do with what we could call human nature, whereas life in hunter/gatherer societies has more to say about what that nature is.
Simply because it is within such cultures mankind has lived for most of its time, and thus is likely to dominate the preferences on the individual level, in accordance with natural selection.

With the rise of agriculture and a sedentary lifestyle, coercive power relationships could more easily evolve, and they would have been felt as coercive, even though that didn't make the power structure crumble.

Nowadays, where that power has largely crumbled, whimsical fleeting sexual associations are re-asserting themselves, due to their naturality.

 

[brainstorm]

Nowadays, where that power has largely crumbled, whimsical fleeting sexual associations are re-asserting themselves, due to their naturality.

Although I can see how you would argue that casual sex is more natural than rigorously institutionalized sexual organization and planning, I think you're ignoring how casual sex can be utilized to achieve structuring goals. Sexual control is a culture that exploits the need for sexual secrecy to make people more vulnerable to social control. Put simply, if you engage in casual sex without complete comfort in having anyone and everyone know about it, then anyone who does know holds power over you in that you are dependent on them not to disclose your secrets to those whose disdain could affect your well-being. Thus, people who engage in casual sex must become more submissive to catering to people who could disclose their secrets, making them more docile/maleable to social control. So, while apparently natural, casual sex can actually be used to enhance cultural social-control.

 

[arildno]

Well, power and power-seeking is natural, too.

Do you have any evidence that casually sexed individuals are more submissive persons?
Answer:
No.

 

[brainstorm]

Do you have any evidence that casually sexed individuals are more submissive persons?
Answer:
No.

Submission in conformity is usually invisible - it's about blending in and not standing out, at least not outside of standardized norms of individuality. More importantly, having a secret life means being extra careful not to do anything that would upset anyone. E.g. if your friend wanted you to do her a favor that you didn't really want to do, but you knew she had dirt on you about that could shame you if she divulged it to people, you would be more reluctant to refuse to do the favor. Ever read Stephen King's story, the Apt Pupil? This story contains exaggerated examples of how people can use secrets to gain social power in manipulating other people. The examples in that story are war crime and murder, but there's no reason why sexual secrets couldn't serve the same purpose.

Well, power and power-seeking is natural, too.

Of course everything humans have the capacity to do emerges in some way from their "nature" or it would not be possible for them to do it.

My point about the casual sex was simply to point out that while it was claimed that more relaxed sexual control was correlated with less advanced social control, the opposite may be true. I.e. more sexual freedom may facilitate stronger social control and thus more powerful authoritarianism. Chastity may actually be relatively liberating by releasing people from the potential to be publicly shamed insofar as shaming is still possible on the basis of sexual behavior deemed "deviant" in some way or other.

Look at what happened to Tiger Woods for his casual sexuality - and imagine how many wealthy high-profile people are still paying for their mischief to be kept secret. Consider the fact that the only reason's why Tiger's actually came out is because he didn't pay enough to satisfy his secret-keepers. Others probably are.

 

[AlexES16]

Well i am midle class dude from El Salvador and i have 17 years xD(1 month for 18). Personally i will say that i have a inner peace, i try to control my emotions and seek hapiness in simple things, like thinking that the best taste is the taste of water when you are thirsty, and for me, material things are necessary to met the basics needs as food, health, housing and fast transportation as ambulances. But luxury and buying/making unnecesary things make you a slave of this ones. Well maybe i am like this becouse of my country, as i say before i live in El Salvador, one of the most violent countries in the world, when 2 weeks ago a bus was burned with 17 peoples inside, a country in which the next day i can get killed or one of my loved ones. Also the poverty, the people that go for the american dream, escaping from violence and missery. I see how science is used in good ways like clean energy, medicine, access to information and the noble desire to understand nature, but also the bad uses, like consummism of cellphones and onther million unnecesary prducts that hurt nature and make the basic needs be in danger and not to mention weapons. I am all with sexual liberation but not with deshonesty, and example will be: You have a girlfriend and you and her want to have sex with other people and get to an agreement, that will be honest, but cheating is bad. Well i think i have metioned a lot of things in my ignorance, at the end who am i to say what your basic needs are. Well the ancient philosophy of stoicism have helped me a lot and i think you should live every day like is your last becouse it could be, but also doing this respecting the rights of the other people and they as human beings.

 

[Speldosa]

Without having read the thread: I think that the appeal in making money comes from the fact that we think that that will get us love and friendship, which among other things, come about from rising in social rank.

 

[brainstorm]

Without having read the thread: I think that the appeal in making money comes from the fact that we think that that will get us love and friendship, which among other things, come about from rising in social rank.

Right, this is the social mechanism that I think is pre-empting the potential for love/friendship to comfort people in the face of lost wealth, income, and other resources. People could theoretically comfort their friends and loved ones in poverty and lessen the effects, but if they stop liking their friends or loving their family/lovers at the onset of poverty, they just end up abandoning them and seeking richer fresh meat. This in turn promotes the idea that people need to make more money to gain love and friendship, which increases the will to money. So it seems that friendship/love have become reduced to carrots for stimulating people to seek more money than anything else. Lose you job/property = lose your friends/family until you get some new resources.

 

[turbo]

My wife and I had NO money when we met. She had lost her job, and the mill where we both had worked was closing, so I was in the process of losing mine as well. I managed to catch her up on her back-rent (earning the undying admiration of her land-lady, who often offered me great deals in her antique shop) and we survived on my unemployment checks, basic foods, etc, until I could find a decent-paying job. I wrangled that job into another and another (in construction) and we lived in cheap walk-ups chasing jobs and trying to save money. Eventually, we had enough money to buy a place of our own at about the time that I had a long-term job in one place that paid well. We still saved and saved.

Some of the happiest days of our lives may have been when we were surviving on out-dated bread, cheap chicken organ meat from a local butcher shop, and home-made pasta dishes. We didn't eat out, buy expensive stuff, or go to the movies, etc, but we were happy. We have even happier days now, sometimes, in part due to our rural neighborhood, nice neighbors, and an adopted dog. Much of this was made possible by decades of hard work and saving. So money has a way of being leveraged into some situations that can make your lives more pleasant.

I have been sidelined a bit early in life, and am collecting SSDI due to a medical condition, but that doesn't mean that I am unhappy. Our savings over the years have made us relatively secure, and I don't mind having to rely on SS to pay my share of our expenses. My wife's job is probably secure until retirement, but if not, we'll get by.

 

[Speldosa]

So money has a way of being leveraged into some situations that can make your lives more pleasant.

Absolutely. I think that you can be more happy if you already have friends and love, and add money. However, if you only have money, you probably won't be more happy if you get friends and love. You'll rather start being happy.

 

[AlexES16]

My wife and I had NO money when we met. She had lost her job, and the mill where we both had worked was closing, so I was in the process of losing mine as well. I managed to catch her up on her back-rent (earning the undying admiration of her land-lady, who often offered me great deals in her antique shop) and we survived on my unemployment checks, basic foods, etc, until I could find a decent-paying job. I wrangled that job into another and another (in construction) and we lived in cheap walk-ups chasing jobs and trying to save money. Eventually, we had enough money to buy a place of our own at about the time that I had a long-term job in one place that paid well. We still saved and saved.

Some of the happiest days of our lives may have been when we were surviving on out-dated bread, cheap chicken organ meat from a local butcher shop, and home-made pasta dishes. We didn't eat out, buy expensive stuff, or go to the movies, etc, but we were happy. We have even happier days now, sometimes, in part due to our rural neighborhood, nice neighbors, and an adopted dog. Much of this was made possible by decades of hard work and saving. So money has a way of being leveraged into some situations that can make your lives more pleasant.

I have been sidelined a bit early in life, and am collecting SSDI due to a medical condition, but that doesn't mean that I am unhappy. Our savings over the years have made us relatively secure, and I don't mind having to rely on SS to pay my share of our expenses. My wife's job is probably secure until retirement, but if not, we'll get by.

Happy for you, and thanks a lot for sharing your storie with us, people like you are real human beings.

 

[AlexES16]

Wow ill be happy that a "friend" live me alone just beocuse I am poor or think that i am weird or something, dude who need a "friend" like that? The only thing we can do is to be better everyday, and treat other as we would like to be treated(and I am not a christian). No matter if hell breaks around you, you can always do the right thing.

 

[physicsdude30]

Considering that economic recession has been on the agenda for years now, I was asking myself if anything can adequately comfort people in the absence of money and material consumption. The only possibility I could come up with is love and friendship.

So my question is whether finding and consuming love and friendship allows people to achieve happiness with less money and material consumption, or if love and friendship are only possible when money and material consumption are possible with a friend or lover.

I wonder what you would think about testing this idea? On another thread you said that you could always use the scientific method to evaluate which ideas are more valid than others?

What about something like a survey where people rate on a scale 1-100 how happy they are, how happy they are with life, other questions like that? Then have demographic questions like "amount of income".

Although correlation doesn't prove causation, it can be used to disprove since it's a requirement and if there isn't a correlation then any possible causation would be too small to notice. Continuing this line of thought, in the medical field they'll notice a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, then they'll control for third variables and check the remaining correlation.

What about using that technique for something like this? Check for a correlation between the amount of money one makes and the happiness scale 1-100, then control for third variables such as friendship? For example, I've heard of friendship quotients (like an intelligent quotient but rather how deep vs. shallow friendships are). Perhaps other measures also?

What would you think about something like this?

 

[physicsdude30]

In addition, it may be possible that the correlation is one way from poverty all the way to middle income, but then leveling off after middle income. I'm not sure if you're familar with curvilinearity, but there are ways to deal with that, plus one could look at a scatter plot similar to some of them used in engineering/physics.

Galileo would use experiments to test things to find out what was more valid.