Is the U.S too obsessed with money?
 

edit:crap I meant to put this in tilted living, if the mods could move it there or wherever they think it should belong.

I just wanna apologize ahead of time if you don't get what I'm saying, I'm not to good at expressing my thoughts on paper (or in this case on a monitor)

In my every day routine I always get the impression from the people I meet that money is the key to hapiness. You watch the news and they talk about the poor US economy and you get the impression everyone has this shitty life because of it. I come on here and read the politics section and besides terrorism, most of the posts it seems are about the economy. I go to work and all the kids I work with talk about how they wanna make a shitload of cash so they can buy all sorts of crap, and they think that will make them happy.

In high school I had a humanitarians teacher, and a year later a public issues teacher, both of whom asked the class on the first day to write a short paragraph on the purpose we all go to school. In the class probably 70% of the kids thought the purpose was so we could go to college and then get a good job that makes a lot of money. If you asked the whole school I'm sure most of the responses would be the same.

It feels like there is just this line of thinking that the purpose of life is to get a good job to buy a nice house and buy all sorts of crap. I hear people argue against things like universal health, the reasoning often times is it'll raise taxes and those people don't wanna pay for others health care. My question to them is is that 52" screen tv, or swimming pool, or whatever it is you plan on buying with your extra money really more important to you then the well being of another person? I realize in many cases these people don't wanna be taxed because its their rent or car insurance that they need to pay for and not luxury items(which is why you need less taxes on the lower class).

I realize having a good economy is important, and having the things we have is indeed very nice. I just find we are way too obsessed with it all, and Americans everyday find more and more hapiness in consumerism.

Money can't make you happy.

Lack of money can make you miserable.

I agree with most everything in the original post. However, it isn't really fair to ask a person who works hard and pays 50-60% in taxes to just give up some more of their money for the benefit of someone else. There is no question that the good causes of the world overwhelm at least my ability to rectify them with money. At some point (and I think we are well past it), additional taxation becomes an issue of freedom. You also seem to advocate a more progressive tax system. I believe that will hurt the economy from top to bottom.

People like to say that money can't make you happy.

It can, and I have just the proof you need:

Do you like going to work everyday from 9 to 5? I mean, really really like it?

If you had the option of having enough money to where you never had to do this, would you?

If you had enough money to never have to worry about bills, to have a decent house (doesn't have to be a million dollar home, just an avg family house), to know that you'll never have to be concerned about your financial status, would you like that? Wasting 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year (minus holidays) of your life is quite a bit. Wouldn't you like to have it back and reclaim what's yours?

I love my job. However, if I suddenly got my hands on $10 million, I'd quit in a heartbeat. I'd buy a nice $300k home, pay it off, and just enjoy the rest of my life.

Money can't buy you other happiness related things, like a woman who loves you, or health, but it most certainly relieves a lot of stress that's on pretty much everyone else's shoulders.

I like my job. whether I do it from home or at the office is irrelevant. Were I to win the lottery, I would quit my job but only because I'd start my new one. Owner/Driver of my very own Nextel Cup racing team.

I agree with #2, but I think money can make you happy in the short term. People adapt to a standard of living, and changes can be either pleasant or not, but once someone is used to living a certain way, it's not so important how high that standard of living is.

As for the post, I think you could make a strong argument that we might be better off spending some of our national income building a better society through education and other such things, rather than on greater levels of consumption.

Well said.


Mr Mephisto

I couldn't agree more....but I still want money :)

I have a bit of a different opinion here...

I believe that money is pretty much everything. I don't mean to sound materialistic or anything as shallow as that, but basically - at least here in America - Money buys freedom. Lack of money limits so many people as to what they can do, where they can go, and what they can have. I also will have to disagree with the sentiment that money can't buy happiness. Obviously, you can't purchase a feeling, however - if you don't have to stress about money/ have the freedom to do pretty much whatever you want (within reason) it will be a heck of a lot easier to be happy that to have to struggle to put food on the table.

Just my $.02 (harhar)...

Here's a quote from the Boiler Room -
"People who say money doesn't buy happiness - don't fucking have any."

the key to having a happy life is enjoying what you have, not whining about what you don't have. And the best things in life can't be bought.

Yes. The U.S. is too obsessed with money.

Money can't buy pure liquid happiness, but it can buy sources of happiness. And beyond the normal products, it can provide security, determine the environment you live in and the people you live around, and generally reduce your fears.

But yes, the U.S. on the whole, is too obsessed with money, especially if you think about what people are willing to do to make money beyond what is necessary to amply provide for the things I mentioned above.

Well, we're certainly too obsessed with possessions. Which means we think we _really need_ a lot more money than we really do need.

The bumpersticker "He Who Dies with the Most Toys, Wins," kinda says it all. I do know people who act like that, and their life is all about appearances: what you drive, what you wear, how big a house you have, and so on. When you get locked into that mindset, you close your mind to the very possibility of recognizing or considering a great many deeper issues about yourself or about the world in general.

I think Ben Affleck said it best in Boiler Room:

"Money can't buy you happiness" is cliche.

It's not true.

You know it, I know it. The end.

I don't recall exactly where I heard it first, but I've heard someone say that "Americans live to work, while Europeans work to live." IME, this is true. Somehow the American Dream went from enjoying life into making a crap load of money. Yes, the money can help you to enjoy life, but if you're too miserable to appreciate what you've got, what's the point? Why kill yourself working just so you can have the most toys? Personally

I'd rather work enough to do what I enjoy (and have enough time to properly enjoy those things), but if that means I need to save some by getting used cars and books etc., then that's A-OK with me. There seems to be a lot of people that just see the money at the end of the tunnel.

I don't think that the original post really said anything about the "money can't buy happiness" thing. If I understand his point well, he was stating that Americans base more of their self-worth on buying things than they do on being who they are.

The consumer culture of this country is nothing short of incredible. We are actually told that we are not good Americans if we are not listening to advertising and buying up all of the crap that is being offered. I have had people argue with me that we need more consumer spending because it is better for the economy than consumer savings.

If money can't buy you happiness, you aren't buying the right things. :lol:

I think we save too little in the US and the savings rate should be a little higher. On the whole, however, I agree that spending is better than saving for the economy.

Oh, and lower taxes. I think the government derives too much of its self-worth from spending my money. I think it should just slow down, smell some roses, and stop spending so much.

I'm not trying to say wanting to make money is unhealth or anything. But I think we take it too far, to the point where Americans basically live life to make money and buy things thinking that what will make them happy is the stuff they buy. I live in a rural but pretty heavily populated town. People are never really outside interacting with each other doing things, they are all inside watching tv and playing games. Thats a general statement, however its not all that far from the truth.

I don't really know what I'm trying to say, maybe I mean that I think money has become more important then life.

If money can't buy happiness...I guess I'll have to rent it :-(

Well written, good point, I agree.
But referring to what Ustwo said: Well written, good point, I agree.

The top five pleasures in my life:

1. Wife.
2. Baby.
3. Rest of the family (mom, siblings)
4. My REAL friends (friends help you move....REAL friends help you move bodies...and a real friend isn't someone you use once and throw away...a real friend is someone you use over and over again. :thumbsup: )
5. Pets (all rescued cats)

These things are not for sale. And I can't think of a single asset (hell, even ALL of my assets) that I'd be unwilling to sell to protect or keep one of the top four. If I had everything I could ever dream of having possession-wise, but was without one of the top four to get it, I'd be miserable.

Money can't buy you happiness, but it sure as hell can provide some of the basic necessities that all people require in order to be truly happy.


Let's face it, we all need money in order to acquire the following:

Food

Clothing

Shelter -- (i.e. decent house or apartment with running water, electricity, heating for winter)

Higher education -- seriously, it's damn near impossible to get a free ride to college
unless you're an exceptional athlete or a super-genius

Money buys freedom, not happiness, i don't care what ben affleck said in boiler room. Affleck has plenty of money, but i can't imagine that he's too happy about the current state of his career or his highly publicized relationship failures. In america, money is opportunity. Happiness is appreciating what you have, you don't need money to do that, in fact, i would imagine that it would be more difficult for someone born into wealth to appreciate what they have, since they've never not had it.

if anyone was confused by my first post on the thread... :lol: means it was a joke. :D

I like the bemper sticker that I saw a year or so ago.

"Need Less"

I have been working on this myself.

I'd attribute it more to rampant consumerism and materialism. It runs through us, money is an expedient through which material wealth can be had, hence the drive to obtain money, to satiate the desire for stuff.

For me it has nothing to do with greed, it's all about not seeing it as right to impose my will on someone else in such a manner.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Ask a rich man who's child is dying of cancer how happy he is.

The US does seem to be more preoccupied with wealth than others. I remember listening to a conversation between my father (a corporate lawyer) and one of his work colleagues while they were basically categorising a person's worth as a result of his salary (and this from someone who once told me he didn't care what I did in life as long as I was happy).

By their reckoning, you are nothing until you're earning $100,000 a year, and that people who earned less than that were lazy and unambitious. When I pointed out that there are plenty of worthwhile professions that pay far less than that (and that, of course, the average annual income in the US is far, far less than $100,000), they responded that anyone who enters into these professions in the first place has no ambition either.

I was shocked to say the least.

Or a rich man whose children hate him and are only hanging around to get their claws on his money, or a rich woman who longs to be young and attractive again or....

No, it cannot buy happiness.

You people use bad examples. Cancer? Okay then... haha. No one said it can buy you health, or people who aren't greedy. Those are problems everyone deals with, rich or not.

How about: hey, I never have to stress out about wasting my life working 40 hour weeks to pay my bills. Yay! That's proof of happiness right there.

Anything else is extra.

So yes, it can buy happiness. I'm not "wrong", it's an opinion. If I was rich, I'd be happier because the only worries I have in life now are working and paying bills.. and I don't even have problems with those. If I had cancer, I'd worry either way. At least I know if I was rich, I could go on a massive spending spree before I died.

No, we used very good examples.

And Ustwo already addressed your example by saying that lack of money could cause unhappiness.

It is entirely possible to have your "bills paid" and still not be happy.

Cancer is not a good example...

In any case, I never said complete happiness, but it will buy a LOT of it.

...and you're a liar if you claim you wouldn't be happy if you just suddenly acquired a few million.

Whatever.

Good luck on trying to buy happiness.

Cliche cliche.

There was a study (linked on Fark a couple of months ago). Money does buy happiness.

Essentially it comes down to money helping eliminate some common areas of stress. Stompy is right - it can buy happiness, but it cannot buy all happiness.

The basic problem is that both of you are equating the lack of stress over money issues with happiness and the same stress with unhappiness.

The Buddha, who was the heir to great wealth, threw it all away in his search for nirvana. Jesus died penniless on the cross. Mother Theresa, Ghandi, the Dahli Lama, all poor...and happy.

There are also many examples of men and women with great wealth who are/were decidedly unhappy, including Howard Hughes and William Randolph Hurst.

So clearly, happiness is not directly connected to wealth.

When we examine those who have wealth and ARE happy, the relationship becomes clear.

Those who maintain perspective and who use their money in ways that benefit people are those that are happy.

Bill Gates donates billions of dollars to charity, does not live in the biggest house off of Lake Washington, and who has said that his children will have to work for their living is apparently happy.

This is of course why the saying "money can't buy you happiness" is often misconstrued, because to some it seems that these wealthy people MUST be happy and it MUST come from their money.

Likewise why some do not understand the corallary, that the love of money is the root of all evil, thinking that it is money itself that is evil, because people commit great evils while pursuing money.

In short, money is a tool, being external to ourselves.

Happiness, which is a state of being, must come from within.

At best, money can influence the environment in which we pursue happiness (i.e. provide an environment without the stress of "how will I feed my children" and "how will I afford shelter for my family?")

Yes.

And note that no one has stated that money is happiness. Simply that money can buy happiness. As you have just stated.

Please, if you want to believe that, you may.

But I just posted at length that money CANNOT BUY HAPPINESS.

Give up Lebell, some people insist on learning things the hard way ;)

if I got a sum of money which would require me to never work again do you think I'd just spent my time idly by, wasting it away?

no, I'd finish college and pursue what I really have a passion for, and though that involves work, I'd have a hell of alot of fun doing it.

Some of you people have no concept of OPINION or SUBJECTIVE TOPIC.

I'll just leave it at that. I'm sick of wasting time posting things that should be quite obvious ;)

I think the most telling facts about the people you listed is that none of them were poor, they had the freedom to enter a life of austerity.

I wouldn't classify all, or even any, of them as "happy," maybe more accurately as tormented by what they perceived to be injustice in the world.

All of them were anti-capitalists, as well.

But the myth that these people lived and died poor, yet still lived happy lives, makes a powerful story indeed.

Parsing between purchasing a pleasant or comfortable environment and whether that actually "buys" happiness isn't clear and quite frankly seems to be a useless distinction.

People can't buy happiness, but they can buy things or an environment conducive to happiness?
OK, you "win" the argument. Are you happy now?

American-style greed. Mindless consumerism and selfish materialism!

What happiness!

I didn't realize that you had a horse in this race.

In any event,

-Ghandi, Mother Teresa and Jesus did not start out rich.

-The myth as you call it appears to be very real, or do you have anything to back up your assertion that it's a "myth"

-At a minimum, Jesus was not "anti-capitalist" as you put it. Jesus WAS of the assertion that the love of money was a serious impediment to the search for God (which I do NOT argue against). (I will not answer for the others, because I do not know. But I would like to see for each of them some proof for your assertion that they are/were "anti-captilist".

-I did no such "parsing", I did however make a clear distinction between providing an environment that was more condusive to pursuing happiness and actually buying happiness (i.e., if I had enough money to buy that car/house/boat/trophy wife/etc, THEN I WILL BE HAPPY, or even, if I can just pay off my credit card, THEN I WILL BE HAPPY!)

Having such an environment is significantly different from having happiness, which is in direct contradiction to what Stompy and Manx seem to believe (that if I won a million bucks then I wouldn't have to work and then I would be happy!)

The failure to see the distinction is IMO, the major stumbling block for many in western culture and also a key part to this entire thread.

-No, debating on the net has relatively little to do with my "happiness". It does however pass the time while scripts run as well as provide some amusement. Occasionally, I like to flatter myself and think that some of the things I post help others understand things in a new way.

Sorry, no.

Having money to pay off a credit card, move closer to work to cut commute times, pay for a better school for your child, take a relaxing vacation to the Caribbean = happiness. It is not Ultimate And Everlasting Happiness™ - but it provides an environment of lower stress. Lower stress = higher happiness. Money buys lower stress. Money buys happiness.

Whether the people you mentioned were happy is entirely unknown. Whether they were anti-capitalist is irrelevant. None of them lived in a capitalist society or according to capitalistic methods of living. Their entire relationship with money was fundamentally different than the average person living in the U.S., so they have nothing to do with this conversation.

I'd assert there has never been a civilized nation that was not obsessed with money. In the case of some "primitive" "nations" that might be utilized to subvert my statement, I'd submit they were/are obsessed with the things their cultures considers "valuable"

So, people are what their cultures shape them to be. Cultures place "value" on certain things - the most common is some concept of "money" or material exchange. It seems to me that all humans share this trait.

Art - as in everything there are degrees. My understanding of the original post is that the question is whether the U.S. is more obsessed with money than other many other countries and cultures.

And I would also say that not all humans share the trait of desire or obsession with material exchange. Most, but not all. I am of the belief that it is not an inherently human trait, but a trait of most cultures.

One last attempt and then you are free to have the last word.

To just use ONE example, Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) had great wealth, but he forsook it all, knowing that it had no relevance to his happiness.

This is VERY relevant to our discussion.

Lower stress and higher happiness are NOT equal. To prove this, I meerly have to provide one example of someone with low stress that is not happy.
Also, more money does not equate to lower stress. (I can provide examples of people with a lot of money who have high stress.) What it does do is remove SOME stressors, which I have listed a few of.

As to your examples:

Pay off credit card: Why is it high in the first place? Paying for a trip to the Caribbean? Eating out? Attempts to buy happiness?

Cut commuter time: Why are you commuting? Could you work closer to home? Or is the high paying job accross town and you want the bucks?

Better school: Is it too much time to spend working with your child, making sure their homework is done? Are you working late across town finishing a project for a big promotion (and raise) instead of going to a parent teacher conference?

Vacation in the Caribbean: would a local (read, less expensive) vacation, seeing the beauty of the area in which you live not serve to lower your stress? Why is the Caribbean "better" at lowering your stress? Is it because it is the "Caribbean"?

In otherwords, there are plenty of people that manage to be happy in the situations you've described without having the money, while there are plenty of people who have money in the same situations and are NOT happy.

This last fact alone logically proves that money does NOT buy happiness.

[austin]And I'm spent...[/austin]

People are splitting hairs here. Would money make you happy? It would certainly erase some of the bumps in the road of life, but is that the same as happiness? I have read that everybody has a natural temperament that can be on the grim or pessimistic side, or on the positive and anticipating-pleasure side, or somewhere in between. A good event or piece of fortune can temporarily bump up the mood of even the sourest individual, but his or her basic mood will inevitably return to its preset level in a matter of weeks or months. This has certainly been the case for me.

In short, nothing can make you happy but you. Some people can maintain a basically positive outlook on the world when their loved ones are dying of cancer; they mourn, cope, and go on. Others are thrown for loop by simply losing a job or a girlfriend and can take years to recover, if ever. Money might erase a few bumps, or lack of money might add a few. But even with money, the grim will find a reason to be grim; and without it, the naturally optimistic will find reasons to keep looking forward with anticipation.

It is only relevant to our discussion if you are insisting that I am speaking in absolutes. Buddha (and let's note his story is mythological) is a story about Ultimate And Everlasting Happiness (i.e. enlightenment) - and his point is that money prevents attaining it. But we are not talking about mythological Ultimate And Everlasting Happiness - we are talking about people living and working in the U.S. (specifically) and the average person (in general). In this case, lower stress does equal more happiness. Stress creates the inverse of happiness. Again, not Ultimate And Everlasting Happiness, but just regular-old normal happiness that puts a smile on your face. Money buys it. Money does not eliminate stress by any measure.

Yes they are. All you would prove by providing such an example is that low stress does not equal Ultimate And Everlasting Happiness. Which I have never claimed. So feel free to prove something which is not being argued.

Take the most unhappy rich person you can find. Take away all his money. I'd bet you my house that 99% of the time, he'd be trying to get his money back - i.e. he is presently more unhappy.

You only need to bone up on some history before you incorrectly assert that:

a) those three people were not wealthy at birth

b) that they were not anti-capitlist


first of all, just use google on Ghandi and Mother Teresa

Here's your first "impoverished" example:


here's your second:

As for Jesus, we'll just allow that he was a historical character for the time being (I don't know what kind of proof you desire as evidence that biblical Jesus was mythological; perhaps you looking up the definition of myth would be in order):

The historical Jesus (and his disciples) was a skilled worker, and would have remained so with his family had he not gone wandering preacher in his adult life, not a pauper.

The mythological Jesus, evidently, was already a king before he eschewed riches and humbled himself to become flesh.

So your point fails on both the historical record and the mythological one.


Your assertions about capitalism and how those three characters are oriented to it are symptomatic of your history lessons in school.

Notwithstanding the fact that capitalism didn't exist in Jesus' day--it's telling that he and his disciples didn't subscribe to private ownership seeing as they lived in communes.

What would a nun have to say about private ownership? Not much in her own life given that her needs were taken care of via the community.

Was Ghandi opposed to capitalism? Even in death, he can speak for himself:

"No doubt, capital is lifeless, but not the capitalists who are amenable to conversion."

"There's enough on this planet for everyone's needs but not for everyone's greed"

Of course, Ghandi had some equally ripe things to say against socialism, so one must temper quotes with his historical context and a fuller understanding of the issues he faced than your commentary wants to indulge in. Suffice it to say that Ghandi felt compelled to argue that capitalists and laborers are not fundamentally opposed to one another and he looked to a time wherein they would co-exist. Now, whether that belief can come to fruition while capitalism operates isn't a subjective determination. But idealism certainly has my respect and a certain place in the global arena.

I concede the Mother Teresa and Ghandi (mostly because I don't care to go digging at this point), but I do not concede Jesus and the Buddha. Contrary to what has been asserted, Buddha's early life is not unknown. Also contrary to what you seem to want to assert, Jesus would not have been 'wealthy' or even 'well off', as carpenters were not considered even as equal to the merchant class at the time. At best, had Jesus not entered into preaching, he would have been in the upper lower class of the time. (From biblical accounts, Joseph does not appear to be in the picture when Jesus is an adult.)

As to the 'mythical' Jesus, I was specifically addressing your assertion,

This is indeed false, so I don't understand this next assertion,

since you failed to address the points I made. (Perhaps that is your training taking over.)

And capitalism did not exist in the ancient middle east? Seems that the merchants of the time practiced it pretty well. Perhaps you ought to hit the dictionary yourself and look up the definition of "capitalism".

I think the problem here is that some people can’t get beyond the miserable part. If you are young and poor, as I’m willing to bet many of you are, money will be your top worry. Everything you do will be based around the money in your pocket, from paying the rent to getting pizza. There will never be enough money to do everything you want, and get everything you want and you have no idea where you will get more.

I was once young and poor, but I always had backup plans, and a long term plan to be sure I wouldn’t be poor forever. Having disposable income is great, or perhaps I should say was great, now that my wife isn’t working it will get tight a while, but its not the happiness maker some of you seem to think it is.

Having money obviously removes the big worry that lack of money can cause. You will never be stuck in a spot where you just can’t do what you feel you need to do to survive. It helps at home as there won’t be pressures on how the money is spent, or any of the other pressures having to many bills and not enough cash can bring.

This state is not happiness. This state is just having a need met. It can make it easier to be happy, but only a very shallow person is made happy based on what they buy. People rant on consumerism yet they think that same consumerism will make them happy?

I now have a young son. No amount of money would make me happy if it required that he suffer for it. His well being is more important to me than money. I’ve seen to many rich parents with shitty kids they spoiled to the point of them being truly good for nothings, who are anything but happy with how life has gone.

Oh dear god.

First of all, a myth is a story that relays a culture's ideals. Whether something is true or not doesn't determine whether something is a myth. If you had looked it up instead of just reacting to my statement, you would have found that out for yourself. Instead, I have to point it out to you along with the next incorrect assertion you make:

Capitalism wasn't around in B.C. or even the first 100 years of A.D. (whereever you want to place Jesus and his disciples).

Before you admonish someone to look something up, you might want to at least know what you're talking about. If you get interested in actually learning about these topics, the relevant terms would be: mercantilism, capitalism, and nation-states.

Stompy, I would have expected you to point out the silliness in the statements by pointing out the obvious in:

a) comparing a rich person dying of cancer to a poor person dying of cancer

b) comparing a poor person who longs to be young and attractive to a rich woman who can actually afford to alter her body (ignoring the even more obvious of what each one's respective health is going to be like once they hit that later stage)


But, as often the case on this board, people have to "win" a point rather than just agreeing with the forest

Who wants to be pot and who wants to be kettle? :D