|
But Will It Make You Happy? (Money..."Stuff"...etc) (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| butterfly |
i do agree with the part about having less stuff, though limiting myself to 100 personal items is insane.
also, i have lived in a 400 sq ft apartment with 2 people before, and i don't recommend it. people need personal space.
i associate having money with security. it's not about spending (though i do a fair amount), but if i didn't have a good income, i would worry about what i am going to do in retirement. i don't like the idea of having my future comfort be unknown because i don't know how i will pay for it. |
|
|
| shaw |
| quote: | Originally posted by Enigmatik
There is no need for any one human to posses the sheer volume of money that some people possess. None.
And there is no amount of work that any one human could do that is worth that much money. None.
I'd say there should be an income ceiling, but it'd be too impractical to implement. I am, however, fully comfortable with 99.9999% income taxes for some. |
Just wow. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| Exactly, now find your experience in vegas, send all your money there so that I can be rich! |
|
|
| nefardec |
I dont agree about this experience nonsense.
Experiences are simply a different kind of possession, and it's entirely possible to be just as greedy, gluttonous, and conspicuous with experiences as it is with possessions.
Three words:
Hookers and blow.
From a philosophical point of view 'having' money and 'having' experiences are the same - they all hinge upon subjective constructs of value.
I think what's changed is that people now attribute more value to experiences than to inanimate objects, but that doesn't mean they aren't objectifying the experiences. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
I think what's changed is that people now attribute more value to experiences than to inanimate objects, but that doesn't mean they aren't objectifying the experiences. |
Quite the opposite, in my experience. I read a report recently that people have fewer hobbies these days, and prefer the consumerist "thrill" of buying things. That's definitely true of many people I know, who count shopping as a pastime and accumulate a steady collection of useless stuff, which is eventually crated and packed into the basement to make way for the arrival of more useless stuff. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
I find that most people who tend to espouse things like non-materialism have never truly had to live without. Even in extreme cases like the first example the article gave, those people were still able to maintain a certain lifestyle they had complete control over, their sense of security was in opportunity and yes, to a point, the social benefit toward their happiness wealth. When they gained their supposed "independence" from items, they were able to afford more "wealthy" experiences, sure, but the point is they could have gone back anytime that they wanted to.
I mean, if you're all high on yourself for giving away your , have you really though about where it's all going? You're giving material possessions to other people - you're unloading your curse onto others! The less fortunate should already be happy with what they've got because hey, life isn't about what you own, right??? Lol, unloading.
Sure, there's plenty to be said about western culture and how people are truly galvanized towards possession from birth, inundated with advertising that idolizes opulence and material indulgence, etc. But this is certainly not a new thing in the least - perhaps the modern scale is, but status by way of possession has been a powerful factor for selective breeding in human beings since... well, since one ape found a shinier, sharper rock than the next. Is this outdated nowadays? Or does it still ring true that the greatest reproductive advancement is in security on a social level - opportunity for the success of one's offspring and so forth - and that the most potent way to ensure this is through having money or equitable assets?
Does the supposed 'happiness experience' compare with the experience of being a retired millionaire? Of course things may vary according to individual priorities, but aren't those all too often a direct product of one's upbringing? An upbringing that is always in some way guaranteed against the distribution of facility and material maintenance? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| I'll be happy when I gain enough wealth that I can buy other people. |
|
|
| Danny Ocean |
I think it's pretty subjective. for example one could purchase paintings from 16th century italian painters, would you consider it useless?
i can see that with $40,000/year you can't have both memorable experiences as well as luxurious items, however people with higher income can have both. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| The things you own end up owning you? |
|
|
| Danny Ocean |
| depends on what you own. I know a man who through inheritance of money and working the properties was able to purchase renaissance paintings, old coins, trinkets, whatever collectibles he desired from auction houses like Christie's or Sotheby's. Bought fine furniture, etc for his house, traveled, learned languages, and is now a very cultured and wise person. He probably made some good investments as well and was able to multiply his wealth over his lifetime. Is he happy? only he truly knows.... |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I find that most people who tend to espouse things like non-materialism have never truly had to live without. |
Maybe that's because you never get to hear what the have-nots have to say. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Quite the opposite, in my experience. I read a report recently that people have fewer hobbies these days, and prefer the consumerist "thrill" of buying things. That's definitely true of many people I know, who count shopping as a pastime and accumulate a steady collection of useless stuff, which is eventually crated and packed into the basement to make way for the arrival of more useless stuff. |
Yeah I think you're right - I was responding to the claim of this article that experiences are more valuable than 'things'.
Part of the point of my post was to say that 'experiences' are exactly as you said, mere thrills, and more often than not attached to some form of consumerism.
Hookers and Blow
Las Vegas
$1700 Deadmau5 VIP tickets
etc |
|
|
|
|
