Does Wealth Equate to Genuine Happiness?

[Zantra]

I know a LOT of people personally who are obsessed with wealth.. Aquisition of items, goods, wealth itsself for the sake of being wealthy. It's their obsession. Of course i live in L.A., where it's practically a prerequisite of living here to be greedy and obsessed with money. So are rich people happier? I don't think so.

Being rich brings with it it's own set of problems. Sure you don't have to worry about affording basics, but you worry about loosing the wealth you've acquired. You worry about your status, and other such things. I don't think wealth brings happiness. I believe happiness is a choice- that you are happy because you choose to be happy with yourself and your station in life-regardless of where you fall in the scale.

But I'm interested in thoughts of this. Would you be ultimately happy with obscene wealth? How much wealth would it take to buy your happiness, if it could?

 

[arildno]

Happiness is a choice. For those who are rich enough not to worry about the basics.

 

[JasonRox]

I would be really happy with free tuition and free access to libraries/research materials.

You can consider that money.

 

[BoulderHead]

But I'm interested in thoughts of this. Would you be ultimately happy with obscene wealth? How much wealth would it take to buy your happiness, if it could?

Wealth does not buy happiness, though it is common especially for urban dwellers to view money as an obstacle to same. Wealth can, however, provide many a pleasant distraction, but ultimately I believe this is not the same thing. You are who you are, and if it is possible to imagine having lived your entire life in complete isolation and ignorance of the material ‘distractions’ people such as our very own beloved Saint crave, you will be in a position to ask yourself would you have been a happy individual? This isn’t easy for many people to do because they cannot imagine a world without the goodies they crave, being as we are a product of our environment. This is precisely what I was attempting to say to Mr. Robin Parsons once upon a time but having failed to word properly my meaning was misunderstood and the conversation erupted into a dispute. There is a difference between what truly is necessary and what is not. An introspective and mature mind should be able to see beyond the glimmer of a shiny new automobile and grasp a deeper understanding.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

Wealth=Endless Lan PArty=happy

 

[False Prophet]

Happiness is relative. The billionaire just rolls his eyes when his servents drag him another Ferrari, but the hobo is ecstatic when he discovers three extra pizza slices in that discarded pizza box.

Everyone should have the same amount of happiness that they give themselves (except in times of crappy circumstances).

Some religious people are happy when they reach nirvana, and want nothing at all! Happiness is free.

 

[RingoKid]

Not neccessarily. It depends if what makes you happy is good for you or others.

Wealth can bring happiness especially if you share it with others. Here in NZ we tend to trade off wealth for quality of life and as a nation we rate highly on the happy scale. Having good clean fun is what most people I know strive for which to me brings me happiness as opposed to striving for wealth and material possessions. I think we picked that up from my first culture, that of Polynesia for we are slowly starting to define ourelves and our national identity by polynesian standards as opposed to the colonial mindset prevalent in times past.

But yeah False Prophet wanting for nothing is a good start as...

nothing is perfect
in the space where nothing exists
will one find perfection
the perfect nothing

SEEK

Just ask Lao Tzu...

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/lao.html

 

[Kerrie]

time off from work brings me a lot of happiness.

 

[thennigar]

Wealth is just an added bonus to happiness, and if you treat it that way you won't be unhappy because of the stresses of money.
So in other words, no it does not bring happiness but it can add to it if you take it in the right way.

 

[Integral]

Don't know.

Sure would like the opportunity to find out, though!

I have learned that poverty does not guarantee happiness, don't believe that wealth will either.

 

[Aquamarine]

More money will probably not make you more happy if you are healthy and are able to earn a modest amount of money. But if you have any serious disease, mental or physical, money will make you happier. It can buy outstanding psychotherapy, steadily more expensive medications, the best surgeons and fabulous care. Not to mention food and shelter. And we will all need this we when get old, if not before.

More wealth in a society increases the average length of life, decreases infant and mother mortality and makes it possible for people with diseases like diabetes to survive. It allows adequate nutrition, preventing previously common diseases like rickets, blindness and goitre. It probably increases intelligence (The Flynn effect).

And more wealth allows shorter working hours, more holidays and allows children and the elderly to avoid working. It gives better and less dangerous working conditions. It allows choice in work. And better housing, protecting for example from cold and heat. Dental care so not most people have lost their teeths by the age of forty. And at the end of life, it can make death painless instead of the painful misery that was earlier the fate of, for example, cancer patients.

And more wealth in society in the future will allow more of these benefits.

So money will probably not make you much more happy when you are in good physical and mental health and enjoy your work and the people around you. Otherwise, money can buy happiness.

 

[Zantra]

More money will probably not make you more happy if you are healthy and are able to earn a modest amount of money. But if you have any serious disease, mental or physical, money will make you happier. It can buy outstanding psychotherapy, steadily more expensive medications, the best surgeons and fabulous care. Not to mention food and shelter. And we will all need this we when get old, if not before.

More wealth in a society increases the average length of life, decreases infant and mother mortality and makes it possible for people with diseases like diabetes to survive. It allows adequate nutrition, preventing previously common diseases like rickets, blindness and goitre. It probably increases intelligence (The Flynn effect).

And more wealth allows shorter working hours, more holidays and allows children and the elderly to avoid working. It gives better and less dangerous working conditions. It allows choice in work. And better housing, protecting for example from cold and heat. Dental care so not most people have lost their teeths by the age of forty. And at the end of life, it can make death painless instead of the painful misery that was earlier the fate of, for example, cancer patients.

And more wealth in society in the future will allow more of these benefits.

So money will probably not make you much more happy when you are in good physical and mental health and enjoy your work and the people around you. Otherwise, money can buy happiness.

One footnote. It may ALLOW you to work shorter hours, but I've generally found that the wealthier someone is, the harder they work, which may be the reason they are wealthy in the first place. I've found that the wealthier someone is, the harder they have to work in order to maintain that wealth.

It does bring comforts that you wouldn't otherwise afford. However, that's not the same as say wealth brings happiness- it brings things that allow happiness, and takes focus from money. However I've found that the wealthier someone is, the more focused they are on finances. It's a catch 22.

 

[Zantra]

time off from work brings me a lot of happiness.

I get bored if I'm not working. I have to have focus and goals or I just get listless.

Think you'd still be happy after not working for a year? Unless you had a friend who also didn't have to work. All my friends work. I'd be bored

 

[Zantra]

Not sure that I agree with moving the post.. it's philosophical discourse to equate wealth and happiness... *shrug* but whatever.

 

[Mandrake]

I get bored if I'm not working. I have to have focus and goals or I just get listless.

Think you'd still be happy after not working for a year? Unless you had a friend who also didn't have to work. All my friends work. I'd be bored

I retired when I was relatively young (8 1/2 years ago). After about 3 weeks, I couldn't recall what I used to do.

Anyone with a strong interest in life should not get bored. There is simply too much to do and enjoy. Of course, some of that depends on the "wealth" item, since we have to eat and pay bills. In my case, I saved and invested and concluded that my job income was insignificant. Commuting is the pits. Dumping my job was the best move of my life and the closest I will ever come to beating the system.

BTW, as I read through this thread, I don't see any definition of wealth. How does one know if she is wealthy or poor?

 

[Zantra]

That's part of my question- ie, how much money does it take for you to be satisfied? I mean it's entirely subjective since one man's wealth is another man's poverty.. but for me I would say enough money to live and eat well, and never have to work again, living in the same lifestyle I'm accustomed to now. For me having a bmw and a multimillion dollar home isn't that important.
Enough money to travel at my whim, which would be quite a bit. Enough to pretty much do what I needed to do without necessarily being extravagant. I can fly business class, and drive a late model Toyota. To some people this would seem like a meager existence. To not have to punch the proverbial clock(I say proverbial because I think it's been about 10 years since I had to actually do that anyhow) would be my vision of wealthy.

 

[JasonRox]

My list of required items...

Academic Material, so I can learn.
Food, so I can eat. No name food would be fine, as long as it is generally healthy. Also, some organic foods because that is just common sense.
Living Space, so I can sleep. I don't need a huge place, but big enough to have a desk and a bed fit reasonably well.
Bike, so I can travel. A car is not necessary, and I don't see why it would be even if it is a cheap car.

I think that's all I need.

I'd be content with just that.

People ask for too much, and for some reason they think its not alot.

 

[Zantra]

But Jason we're talking about being "wealthy" not just getting by. I somehow suspect you may eventually want to leave school, and eventually want a car.

 

[selfAdjoint]

But Jason we're talking about being "wealthy" not just getting by. I somehow suspect you may eventually want to leave school, and eventually want a car.

Jason has demonstrated that happiness does not dpend on wealth, and I can confirm it. So the set of happy people is not a subset of rich people. Also, anecdotal evidence indicates that not all rich people are happy. So the set of rich happy people is a subset of rich people and also a subset of happy people. Conclusion: wealth is not the cause of happiness in all people, although it may cheer up some people.

 

[russ_watters]

IMO, wealth is simply an enabler. It enables you to do the thing you want to do that take money. Some of these things are needs (eating), some are wants (eating at a nice restaraunt). It should follow that being wealthy and eliminating the problem of physical needs should lead to greater happiness, but (as SA showed) it doesn't. IMO, the reason for this is that happiness is a choice (or set of choices).

People who might worry about whether or not they can pay their next phone bill can (and often do) choose to not let that worry bother them too much. And someone who chooses to look for happiness in money can find that happiness comes from other sources that they lack (ie love).

IMO, starting off poor (or, not spoiled by your parents), then gradually becoming more wealthy allows a person to keep the wealth in proper perspective, living within their means, not worrying about money, but also not attaching their happiness to it.

 

[Zantra]

Also, wealthy is a subjective term that is dependant upon the person and their experiences. To some people $50,000 might seem like a fortune. To others it may seem a pittance, to yet others, a nice chunk of cash, but nothing to get excited over.

The reason I bring this up is because a lot of people (espcecially in the US) equate money with happiness.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Some people, for whatever reasons of nature or nurtur, have a need to have more money. Note that this is not just a need to have money, but to always have MORE money than they in fact do have. They can never be stisfied, and thus can never be happy.

Others have a great thirst to be at the top of the pyramid, with absolutely no-one higher up than they. I think that Bill Gates, for one, has this thirst, and money, while not unimportant to him, is secondary. He gives away billions just as Carnegy did in his day. Largesse is just another pyramid.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I don't think happiness is entirely a choice. People who have depression usually don't suddenly clue in that happiness is a choice and become happy.

As someone who likes learning I can't go without experiencing new knowledge and be happy. I can temporary choose to be happen, but the lack of a desire prevents me from long term stable hapiness unless I solve the problem.

I don't think happiness is entirely a choice. If it was then it would make sense that anything you enjoy is a choice. It may be a choice, but some people seem predisposed to make certain choices.

 

[BoulderHead]

I don't think happiness is entirely a choice. People who have depression usually don't suddenly clue in that happiness is a choice and become happy.

Body chemistry is a reason I don't believe happiness is entirely a choice. I have a relative that was psychotic her entire adult life, going into 'spells' of mental illness that could last days. When her life was nearly over she was tricked into taking medication and cured. No more spells did she have and when a foolish nurse let it slip to her that she was taking anti-psychotics, instead of refusing to continue, as all expected (in 'normal' mode she would most certainly have refused), she announced never to have felt better and her intention to keep taking the medication. She could have led a much happier life had she been on this medication starting about 93 years ago. It takes more than money, and more than a decision, to counter chemical imbalance.

Happy pill, anyone?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think happiness is entirely a choice. People who have depression usually don't suddenly clue in that happiness is a choice and become happy.

Depression is generally considered an illness, (similarly, Boulderhead, drugs alter "normal" human emotions) so that's a different issue entirely. I think this thread is talking about why otherwise healthy people would be unhappy.

 

[Dagenais]

So are rich people happier? I don't think so.

The average rich guy that has a successful job, a benz, a nice, large comfortable house with a pool is probably happier than the average guy on welfare who has to worry about where and when his next meal is.

You worry about your status, and other such things.

Do you have to worry about status? Being wealthy doesn't mean that you have to be obsessed with your image. Maybe movie stars but Jim Carey doesn't seem to obsessed.

The billionaire just rolls his eyes when his servents drag him another Ferrari

Then that billionaire you know should rethink how damn lucky (s)he is.

BTW, as I read through this thread, I don't see any definition of wealth. How does one know if she is wealthy or poor?

Different countries have different standards for wealth (obvious). In the US, I'd say if you made $200,000 yourself, family of 4, you'd be very comfortable.

That's part of my question- ie, how much money does it take for you to be satisfied?

Enough money to pay the bills without worry, nice dinners with relatives, a nice car (maybe deux) and a comfortable good looking house. I wouldn't mind a vacation house either at my favorite ski resort or beach, but that would just be greedy

Can't forget about retirement either - enough money for strolling through the park, relaxing bike rides, ski trips and golf/tennis vacations.

In short, I'd be happy with $100,000 a year (single), more if I had a family, that's pricey.

The reason I bring this up is because a lot of people (espcecially in the US) equate money with happiness.

That's because Americans worry about what others think of them too much. Even when they aren't rich, they like to play rich (some do, I'm not talking about all of them). Some Americans are known for buying cars they can't afford, clothing they shouldn't be wearing and falling into debt (unhappiness).

We can probably conclude that poverty is less fun than swimming in $20's. Fun equals happiness, and you can at least buy some fun with money.

 

[Zantra]

I agree that a lot of americans live beyond their means..which is why the average household debt is about $7,000. Which is largely due to overextension of credit. However I don't thinkthat americans are the only guilty party here. A lot of other countries strive to live like americans. Japan comes to mind, among others.

What they don't tell you is that it is all borrowed, and it only brings t emporary happiness since you have to eventually pay for it all somehow. That's right, the yellow brick road has a bridge out around the next bend

 

[JasonRox]

I agree that a lot of americans live beyond their means..which is why the average household debt is about $7,000. Which is largely due to overextension of credit. However I don't thinkthat americans are the only guilty party here. A lot of other countries strive to live like americans. Japan comes to mind, among others.

What they don't tell you is that it is all borrowed, and it only brings t emporary happiness since you have to eventually pay for it all somehow. That's right, the yellow brick road has a bridge out around the next bend

I would think twice before naming countries off the top of your head.

I know for a fact that in China, it is not borrowed. Japan, I am not too sure, but I sure wouldn't make a judgement if I didn't know.

Second, did you say $7000. Is that the total, or for just the TV? Last time I checked $7000 would seem like a quarter compared to the actual average household debt. It's very high.

You can never watch an American TV show without someone mentionning financial problems. Why do you need to win $1 million?

"So I can pay my beer tab from college. Well, let's just call it the life tab."
Host: "Your life is on a tab."
"Yes, I never pay my bills. I just take, and take."
Host: "Good luck at winning the $1 million dollars!"

Next show...

Host: "Here is family x and they are having problems. Let's bring them in."
Family comes.
Host: "So what is the biggest family issue?"
"Finance."
Host: "I thought you had family problems."
"We do. If I can't buy everything, I go crazy."
Host: "How much do you owe?"
"Everything I bought after the wedding, including little things like candy."
Host: "Do you ever pay for anything?"
"I pay at the casino because if I win, I become rich."
Host: "Your debt is so high that even if you win, you will still owe money!"
"Yeah, but what IF I win twice, three or a million times and then I'll be really rich."
Host: "What if your budget anyways?
"My smudget is controlled by Visa."
Host: "What do you mean?"
"I can't spend when they don't let me, so I am forced to stop. After awhile they feel bad or they make a big mistake and then I get to spend more. That's my smudget."
Host: "That's it for today. Tommorow we will be meeting with retired folks, who still owe money on their college beer tab."

Next show...

Family show...

Kid (Girl or Boy): "Daddy how much do you make?"
Dad: "I make $30 000 kid."
Kid: "WoW! I want to make that too, but plus $1 million."
Dad: "I hope your dreams come true kid."
Kid: "I was thinking dad. If you only make $30 000 and my friends dad makes $250 000, then why do we have a better car and house?"
Dad: "It's called a smudget."
Kid: "What's a smudget?"
Dad: "It's when you spend all the money now, and then pay later."
Kid: "When do you have to pay?"
Dad: "I'm not going to pay it. You will."
Kid: "Why?"
Dad: "Because I won't be around in the future kid, and you'll have to take care of all us old folks with college beer tabs."
Kid: "Do I get a college beer tab?"
Dad: "Of course kid."

To commercials about bankruptcy, lotteries, lawyers who will sue people for saying "hello", credit card companies, car companies, etc...

You get my point.

I'm done. I hope you enjoyed my little script.

Note: If one word of that script is duplicated, my lawyer said I can sue for $1.3 million.

 

[russ_watters]

Second, did you say $7000. Is that the total, or for just the TV? Last time I checked $7000 would seem like a quarter compared to the actual average household debt. It's very high.

That's probably revolving debt: credit card debt: debt debt: real debt. Debt tied up in your house and your car isn't the same because its always atached to something with about as much value as the debt: you can always sell your house or your car and the debt goes away. Credit card debt is money already spent and gone.

Still, $7,000 is less than I would have expected.

 

[Zantra]

That's probably revolving debt: credit card debt: debt debt: real debt. Debt tied up in your house and your car isn't the same because its always atached to something with about as much value as the debt: you can always sell your house or your car and the debt goes away. Credit card debt is money already spent and gone.

Still, $7,000 is less than I would have expected.

Russ beat me to it, but yes, $7K was revolving credit.. I believe actual total household debt is more like 80 or 90K, but I don't remember the exact figure.
Also, Russ you're right in that debt goes away when you sell your house, however, that only stays true if you don't upgrade.. and in order to have a place to live- not to mention avoiding capital gains tax. And americans don't know when to quit.. so if they pay off their debt, they find an excuse to accumulate more.

As far as using Japan for an example, I just picked one out of the air, but Japanese tend to model themselves and their economy after America. You can view it as flattery, or as just taking what works and using it to suit your own needs. Japanese culture is very career oriented, and I would daresay they work HARDER than americans, which may be part of the reason for the high suicide rates there... but that's another topic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Japan has a high savings rate. They are soaking up our debt, along with the Chinese.

 

[Dagenais]

Kid (Girl or Boy): "Daddy how much do you make?"
Dad: "I make $30 000 kid."
Kid: "WoW! I want to make that too, but plus $1 million."
Dad: "I hope your dreams come true kid."
Kid: "I was thinking dad. If you only make $30 000 and my friends dad makes $250 000, then why do we have a better car and house?"

I've noticed that quite a few people living on modest budgets (to put it nicely), drive very nice cars. Different cultures probably have different ideas of what may be important. Expensive cars seem to be popular to the African-American crowd, even when they don't have the cash (if you want to argue this, listen to their very materialistic music or simply open your eyes):

The biggest example that comes to mind would be the reality TV show "Trading Spouses/Moms" or whatever it's called, where each family trades a mother for 1 week to another family (Fox).

In this 1 episode, a Japanese family (incredibly wealthy) took on an african-american mother from the projects of Houston, Texas. Each family gets $50,000 for doing this.

Now, the mother from Houston and her family had large debts, and their house was simply horrible. The first thing on her mind was, "When I get that $50,000, I'm going to buy a Corvette." Not to pay off debts, but to spend more money.

I have friends in America with this mantality too. They get money, but instead of paying the bills and debt, they spend it on something else, which in the long run, will keep them in debt.

It depends on the way someone is raised too. If a child is raised with a strict allowance and their parents are money-minded, constantly reminding their child that they have to pay back half the cost of their new CD player, chances are the kid will grow up obsessed with these things.

 

[Mandrake]

so how much does it take?

We still don't have much of an answer as to what constitutes wealth? How is it that the Democrats want to tax the wealthy if that category of people cannot be identified?

Is wealth income? -- or -- Is wealth assets?

Whatever the answer, how much? Is a million dollars enough to define wealth? Does it matter if assets are hard, or liquid? For example, suppose someone owns a house worth a million dollars (no loan) and has $200k in the bank; compare him to a person who owns a home worth $200k, but has a million bucks in the bank. Are they equally wealthy (or equally poor)?

Perhaps not related, but ... Why is it that the "party of the poor" is so focused on nominating candidates who are outrageously wealthy? Do people such as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Kerry have a better understanding of poor people than do people who are or have been poor?

 

[Zantra]

We still don't have much of an answer as to what constitutes wealth? How is it that the Democrats want to tax the wealthy if that category of people cannot be identified?

Is wealth income? -- or -- Is wealth assets?

Whatever the answer, how much? Is a million dollars enough to define wealth? Does it matter if assets are hard, or liquid? For example, suppose someone owns a house worth a million dollars (no loan) and has $200k in the bank; compare him to a person who owns a home worth $200k, but has a million bucks in the bank. Are they equally wealthy (or equally poor)?

Perhaps not related, but ... Why is it that the "party of the poor" is so focused on nominating candidates who are outrageously wealthy? Do people such as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Kerry have a better understanding of poor people than do people who are or have been poor?

I guess the definition of wealth is a subjective thing.

wealth could be income or assets, though most financial institutions will look at assets as more solid then unearned income that is tenous.

Someone with a million dollar house and 200k in the bank would be potentially wealthier with current real estate trends.. the appreciation on a house is approx 20%/yr compared with a 5-6% rate sitting in a bank account.

 

[False Prophet]

...the appreciation on a house is approx 20%/yr...

That must be some PRIME real estate!

You are right that wealth is a subjective term in terms of what may constitute a material sufficiency. Same as happiness in terms of what facts, information, circumstances etc. would constitute a content feeling.

About health care, a rich man may feel the same going to the best doctor in the world as a poor man who scrounged up enough loot to see the general practitioner down the block. The rich man may feel the same sense of security from his millions of dollars in stock that always provides his lobster and caviar, as a poor man feels from his job at White Castle, which always provides macoroni & cheese and diapers.

These feelings of security and happiness are up to the person, not the money.

Do rich people really have elevated seretonine levels in their brains, or somehow get stronger emotions than someone in modest circumstances?