Ship of Fools: Money Does Buy Happiness

Thread: Money Does Buy Happiness Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029143

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The CEO of a Washington-state company lowered his $1,000,000 salary to $70K and raised the entire firm to that as a minimum.
He picked the number from a Princeton study which concluded that emotional well-being rises with income up to $75K.
My own observations and experience would indicate the same.
When people do not have the day to day concern for maintaining their lives, they are happiest.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

Well, my salary has never been anywhere near that, so I can't comment on whether it increases happiness, but doesn't everyone have day-to-day concerns of maintaining their lives, regardless of how much money they earn? You still have to get up every day, brush your teeth, have a shower or bath, prepare and eat breakfast, go to work, etc. I suppose having servants would eliminate the need to go shopping, cook and do laundry and clean one's house, but then I quite like buying and cooking my food. And bizarrely, I love doing the £1-a-day challenge, when I only spend £1 a day on food - I find that increases my happiness.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Assuming he has been earning a million a year for a while, he will have something in hand to keep him from suffering too much. And his salary will increase once the company is making big profits again.

Yes, a high minimum wage is good, but it just raises the expectation. I think it also means that many people will still be earning a lot more, and it is often the differentials that cause problems.

Personally, I would prefer the 10x principle, where the highest earners don't earn more than 10 times the lowest. This means that everyone benefits from a companies success. So the top earners can earn 1M+, but the lowest earners - and this should include the cleaning staff, the porters etc - should then be earning 100K. If the company can afford that, fine. If it can't afford this across the board, then everyone is reigned back.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

No.

Money can not buy happiness, but it can buy a lot of comfort [Smile]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Assuming he has been earning a million a year for a while, he will have something in hand to keep him from suffering too much. And his salary will increase once the company is making big profits again.

These are my thoughts. Does he even need a salary? Or can he get by on assets already accumulated?

Does money but happiness? Lack of buys unhappiness.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Money can not buy happiness, but it can buy a lot of comfort

And put quite a down payment on happiness.

Personally, I would welcome the opportunity to prove that money can indeed buy happiness.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Assuming he has been earning a million a year for a while, he will have something in hand to keep him from suffering too much. And his salary will increase once the company is making big profits again.
These are my thoughts. Does he even need a salary? Or can he get by on assets already accumulated?

Does money but happiness? Lack of buys unhappiness.

For a while? Give me a million just once and I'll live in comfort for the rest of my life.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Curious bit of synchronicity. A piece by Rachel Johnson in the Waitrose Weekend freebie paper today argued that the super rich are not happier than others, and that there are great similarities between them and the extremely poor. (She has a series on Sky on the subject, apparently.) Both groups have large families, pay little or no tax, and often live in bored isolation. The rich in their gated homes with so few friends they have to have their staff to share their yacht holidays, can have no new experiences, and frantically purchase expensive stuff to try and allay their boredom. The poor, of course, have access to no fun and can only stay in in front of the TV. (She referred back to a BBC programme last year in which she spent a week with people on benefits.)

[ 16. April 2015, 18:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

The studies I've seen seem to suggest that it's more a comparative thing. If you are poorer than everyone around you, then you are more likely to be unhappy than if you are the same as everyone around you. So you could be earning £50,000 and be unhappy because the people you mix with are all earning £100,000. Or you could be earning £10,000, and although it might be a bit of a struggle, you would feel a reasonably cheerful comradship with those around you who are earning the same.

I see this with someone in my family I was chatting to on the phone today - she is a lot wealthier than I am, but her social circle consists of people even wealthier than she is, so she constantly feels dissatisfied. I seem to be happier than she is, despite my very small income.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The poor, of course, have access to no fun and can only stay in in front of the TV. (She referred back to a BBC programme last year in which she spent a week with people on benefits.)

I would challenge this, as not having money doesn't automatically mean you have access to no fun, and doesn't automatically mean you can only watch TV. Being on a very low income is a struggle, but depending on your tastes, fun doesn't have to cost money, or it can cost a small amount of money that you can afford. I have quite a few friends on benefits, and they get together with friends, they go hiking, they go out for coffee, they read, they find fun things to do that don't cost money. I'm not on benefits myself, but I have a similarly small income from part-time low-wage work, and I can't afford to spend money on much beyond necessities, but I don't have a TV and I read a lot, which I love. I dunno, I find these articles about 'the poor' a bit patronising sometimes.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
The studies I've seen seem to suggest that it's more a comparative thing.

Princeton's summary of their study.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
The studies I've seen seem to suggest that it's more a comparative thing.
Princeton's summary of their study.

Ah, thanks for the link. Although that seems to be suggesting that there isn't much correlation between income and happiness - I can't see where it says that 'emotional well-being rises with income up to $75K'.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Perhaps when the study is published we can see it more clearly. However, I think it is this statement

quote:
"The belief that high income is associated with good mood is widespread but mostly illusory," the researchers wrote. "People with above-average income are relatively satisfied with their lives but are barely happier than others in moment-to-moment experience, tend to be more tense, and do not spend more time in particularly enjoyable activities."

combined with enough money to enjoy leisure activity.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

I think the thread is approaching the question from the wrong perspective. Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy protection from certain, very specific forms of unhappiness.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I've been below poverty line in my life. I have also been wealthy with no financial worries. The first motivated the second. Trust me, being in absolute want, hungry and worried about minimally meeting the needs to live is terrible. Having enough to live and not being in absolute want is much, much better.

Is there a qualitative difference among having basic needs all met, to having income about the same as everyone else, to being wealthy? I'd say not really, but having surplus income means when you need something you buy it: for cash. That doesn't mean happiness, it just means your needs and wants are easily gratified. You can also tell yourself stories about how you deserve to be rich.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

ISTM, the study indicates that having more than your needs met is the key. The freedom and wherewithal to take a holiday without financial pain. To buy or do without straining your budget or needing to shift priorities.
Not buy or do anything, but things which are not necessary. Not necessarily even buying or doing anything at all. But to have that level of security equates freedom and engenders content.
But having more than this doesn't generate more happiness as it simply broadens your choice.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But having more than this doesn't generate more happiness as it simply broadens your choice.

There is also some research which suggests that more choices, especially in the consumer category, can increase stress, as it often makes decision-making more complicated and arduous.

I'm reminded of my most recent phone-&-plan purchase . . .

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

What I find confusing about this topic is that everyone's needs and wants are very different, and leisure activity doesn't always cost anything. So I'd say it's impossible to talk about it in terms of amounts. If I were to earn $75K (which would be around £50K in the UK), that would be way too much money for me. It would probably feel exciting to earn so much money and have so many options open to me, but realistically, I wouldn't know what to do with it, and I am definitely someone who gets overwhelmed with too many options, and seeks a simpler life.

I imagine there must also be a big difference if a person has dependents. I have no kids, and live alone, so I can earn very little and live very simply. But if I had children, I'd feel a responsibility to them to earn more, and provide them with various options, and I would feel unhappy that I wasn't earning enough.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

Regarding providing your kids with various options, I suppose you can never provide them with "enough" as there will always be kids with more. You will do your kids a great favour if you educate them as early as possible to be satisfied with little in the way of material wealth and show them that a rich life can be achieved with very little. On the other hand, this can lead to accusations of not encouraging "ambition",

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Regarding providing your kids with various options, I suppose you can never provide them with "enough" as there will always be kids with more. You will do your kids a great favour if you educate them as early as possible to be satisfied with little in the way of material wealth and show them that a rich life can be achieved with very little. On the other hand, this can lead to accusations of not encouraging "ambition",

Yes, definitely, and that's where the variability of what is considered 'enough' makes it complicated. I'm free to decide what is enough for me to live on, and to decide what is important to me and live accordingly, but if I had kids, it would be more complicated. They might be passionate about something that costs money, and they would be influenced by what their peers had, and their access to similar things would have some influence on their relationships with these peers, and their feeling of worth. Of course there would always be those who had more, but a child might feel quite alienated if they were always the one who had the very least, and didn't have the opportunities that other children had.

I am ambivalent about the whole 'ambition' thing. I don't have ambition in the common understanding of the word, and I don't see that as a bad thing, but I also wouldn't want to suppress it in others, if it was important to them. And if I had children, I would at least want them to think they had some choices, and that the things they would like to do weren't automatically impossible for them.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
What I find confusing about this topic is that everyone's needs and wants are very different, and leisure activity doesn't always cost anything.

If I had a wish for people on very low incomes it would be free transport, everywhere and anywhere. I would give anyone on an income below X amount a free travel pass. That way they would have access to work and leisure which is, at the moment, totally unattainable for many.

When my son first arrived in Germany he spoke no German so had to get a minimum wage job while he learned the language. With the job came a travel pass which covered trains, trams and buses. At certain times of day he could also take four others with him for free.

I am a puppy walker for Guide Dogs which entitles me to free local tram, train and bus travel when I have Gypsy with me. We have just returned from a super public transport adventure (train, followed by tram followed by bus) which would have been very expensive indeed without our pass.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I am ambivalent about the whole 'ambition' thing. I don't have ambition in the common understanding of the word, and I don't see that as a bad thing, but I also wouldn't want to suppress it in others, if it was important to them.

Up to a point. I wouldn't describe myself as "ambitious" either - I tend to drift a lot but have learnt to be content with the simpler things in life. (I speak as one who turned down a lucrative job in the City with career prospects on the grounds that I'd be miserable in an environment with hardly any green spaces and I didn't want the rat-race to the top of the ladder either.)

I do think that as a general rule, the more ambitious someone is, the more self-centred they're likely to be. You can't be an extremely ambitious go-getter who intends to succeed in life (assuming the definition of success is to acquire material wealth and status) and be altruistic and self-sacrificing at the same time.

To answer the OP, money doesn't buy happiness, but it can provide the means to make dreams come true. However, you can't buy genuine friends, etc etc.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The poor, of course, have access to no fun and can only stay in in front of the TV. (She referred back to a BBC programme last year in which she spent a week with people on benefits.)
I would challenge this, as not having money doesn't automatically mean you have access to no fun, and doesn't automatically mean you can only watch TV. Being on a very low income is a struggle, but depending on your tastes, fun doesn't have to cost money, or it can cost a small amount of money that you can afford. I have quite a few friends on benefits, and they get together with friends, they go hiking, they go out for coffee, they read, they find fun things to do that don't cost money. I'm not on benefits myself, but I have a similarly small income from part-time low-wage work, and I can't afford to spend money on much beyond necessities, but I don't have a TV and I read a lot, which I love. I dunno, I find these articles about 'the poor' a bit patronising sometimes.

I did give the author of the article, Rachel Johnson, once editor of The Lady, always sister of Boris. As to the poor she wrote of, she was thinking of families she met during a TV programme who were really pushed to find money for necessities. And who had volunteered to be on a programme with her, so not necessarily typical. As she isn't.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Regarding providing your kids with various options, I suppose you can never provide them with "enough" as there will always be kids with more. You will do your kids a great favour if you educate them as early as possible to be satisfied with little in the way of material wealth and show them that a rich life can be achieved with very little. On the other hand, this can lead to accusations of not encouraging "ambition",

I was a child during World War 2, when there were very few toys for sale. If one of us was lucky enough to have a new toy, we shared it because we knew that next time someone else would probably be the lucky one. There was none of the usual division into 'haves' and 'have-nots'. Most of us were 'have-nots' most of the time. We made things and improvised. My family owned the rear wheels and axle of an old tricycle, and we used it as part of many different things.

Looking back, I'm very glad for the experience.

Moo

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I did give the author of the article, Rachel Johnson, once editor of The Lady, always sister of Boris. As to the poor she wrote of, she was thinking of families she met during a TV programme who were really pushed to find money for necessities. And who had volunteered to be on a programme with her, so not necessarily typical. As she isn't.

Yes, I know - I was challenging the article, not you (well, other than your 'of course', but I wasn't sure if that was serious or sarcasm). I find there are a lot of articles that make sweeping statements about 'the poor' and what they can and can't do, and they do tend to be written by upper midde class folk who have always been very comfortably off, and although they are generally well-intentioned, they often write as if they are observing a different species!

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

Echoing - Spike Milligan, I think it was - along the lines of:
"They tell me that money does not bring happiness. All I ask is the chance to prove it."

Incidentally, I run a rather small yacht very cheaply (by yacht standards, at any rate). Mrs B is a member of a syndicate (of about 200) which for a relatively modest outlay gives a toehold into the world of racehorse ownership. Which allows my daughter to speak of "Daddy's yacht and Mummy's racehorses", thus giving a deliciously wrong impression.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Regarding providing your kids with various options, I suppose you can never provide them with "enough" as there will always be kids with more. You will do your kids a great favour if you educate them as early as possible to be satisfied with little in the way of material wealth and show them that a rich life can be achieved with very little. On the other hand, this can lead to accusations of not encouraging "ambition",
I was a child during World War 2, when there were very few toys for sale. If one of us was lucky enough to have a new toy, we shared it because we knew that next time someone else would probably be the lucky one. There was none of the usual division into 'haves' and 'have-nots'. Most of us were 'have-nots' most of the time. We made things and improvised. My family owned the rear wheels and axle of an old tricycle, and we used it as part of many different things.

Looking back, I'm very glad for the experience.

Moo

That reminds me of my Glasgow scheme childhood but in the early to mid 1960s.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

Two words: Diminishing returns.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Echoing - Spike Milligan, I think it was - along the lines of:
"They tell me that money does not bring happiness. All I ask is the chance to prove it."

My grandfather was keen on pointing out that whilst money couldn't buy you happiness, it sure as hell took the misery out of being poor.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

$75,000 is the number?

Good to know

Thanks to Richard Nixon, Americans are now one bill away from complete freedom.

Why? Well, the CEO is nice to pay his custodians $70,000 but to what makes him think they want to clean his buildings. To really be free, those custodians, and indeed all Americans, would have to be free from the requirement to work. For that to happen, each American would need roughly $1 million in savings conservatively invested in a diverse portfolio. If there are 320 million Americans, the government only needs $32 trillion to make this dream a reality.

Now, Richard Nixon took the US dollar off of the gold standard and nobody batted an eye. The US is already $15 trillion in debt and only Republicans when out of power and the virtually extinct Blue Dog Democrats care about that anymore. The dollar is still the reserve currency based strictly on the full faith and credit of the United States government. So, the US government can just print $32 trillion dollars, invest it, and then use the interest to pay each American $75,000 a year.

Then, everybody will be happy. [Yipee]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Echoing - Spike Milligan, I think it was - along the lines of:
"They tell me that money does not bring happiness. All I ask is the chance to prove it."

Incidentally, I run a rather small yacht very cheaply (by yacht standards, at any rate). Mrs B is a member of a syndicate (of about 200) which for a relatively modest outlay gives a toehold into the world of racehorse ownership. Which allows my daughter to speak of "Daddy's yacht and Mummy's racehorses", thus giving a deliciously wrong impression.

I like that. Only share in a racehorse I ever owned came in a Pedigree Chum can.

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :

Money can buy happiness, but only if you use it in the right way. There have been various studies that have asked people how happy they are, given them some money and put them into two groups. The first group was told to go and spend it on themselves, the second on someone else. Then they come back and their happiness is assess again.

The group that spent on themselves (i.e. bought a pair of trainers, some new clothes, etc.) had a small increase in happiness which soon dissipated. The group that spent it on someone else (e.g. bought some flowers for their mother, took a friend out for a meal, donated it to a charity, etc.) had a bigger increase in reported happiness, and the increase was more durable over time.

So money can buy you happiness, if you use it altruistically. The original study I read was based in Canada, but the effect has been replicated across different cultures - it's a pretty universal human thing.

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :

And money isn't the only thing that makes you happy (it is a rather small part of the equation, once you have a minimum to stop yourself starving). Having faith and belonging to a practicing faith community is a biggie. I remember reading once that the difference in reported happiness levels between those who are involved in a church/mosque/synagogue etc. on a weekly basis compared to those who never went at all was the same gap in happiness as between those earning $10,000 per annum and $100,000 per annum.

This study was based in the US where the happiness effects of going to church (or perhaps the misery of not doing so) is more marked than in other countries, but even in Europe where churchgoing rate can be low there is a happiness benefit from being part of a church/faith community. It was also found that believing but not belonging (i.e. not going to church) did not confer much of a happiness effect, it's the reinforcement of regular attendance alongside the community effect that seem to make the difference.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
So money can buy you happiness, if you use it altruistically. The original study I read was based in Canada, but the effect has been replicated across different cultures - it's a pretty universal human thing.

Surely the same effect happens if you are altruistic in ways that don't involve money. Doesn't the happiness come from adding to someone else's happiness, rather than the fact that money happens to be involved?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
And money isn't the only thing that makes you happy

I do not think this is the contention of the study.

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:

(it is a rather small part of the equation,

Part, yes. But small? Large I think. Significant, definitely.

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
once you have a minimum to stop yourself starving).

Completely disagree. In developed countries anyway. There is a great deal we worry about other than starving. It is the elimination of day-to-day worry that is the significant factor.

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:

Having faith and belonging to a practicing faith community is a biggie. I remember reading once that the difference in reported happiness levels between those who are involved in a church/mosque/synagogue etc. on a weekly basis compared to those who never went at all was the same gap in happiness as between those earning $10,000 per annum and $100,000 per annum.

I would greatly like to see the source and parameters of this study. ISTM, it is the belonging that is the largest factor of this.

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
It was also found that believing but not belonging (i.e. not going to church) did not confer much of a happiness effect, it's the reinforcement of regular attendance alongside the community effect that seem to make the difference.

Reinforcing the belonging aspect. This is fundamental to our species.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:

So money can buy you happiness, if you use it altruistically. The original study I read was based in Canada, but the effect has been replicated across different cultures - it's a pretty universal human thing.

In other words, money can buy you happiness if used to buy other people something which makes them happy. I think that's been said up thread, and I agree. Not that making others happy is always dependent on spending money. Giving time can be worth even more...

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

And, as Rhett Butler says in Gone with the wind " Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy some remarkable substitutes."

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the CEO is nice to pay his custodians $70,000 but to what makes him think they want to clean his buildings. To really be free, those custodians, and indeed all Americans, would have to be free from the requirement to work.

I'm not sure that's true. People with purpose are often happier than people with no purpose. Having to earn a living so you can feed your children is purpose that gives meaning even to cleaning someone's toilets.

Even in the Garden Adam and Eve had work to do - name the animals, tend the garden, as well as multiply and fill the earth which must have included child care.

I've seen lots of retirees go back to work (same or different job) because they had nothing to do and it wasn't fun after a few months.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I think we all need and benefit from some constraints - complete freedom would be meaningless.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Even in the Garden Adam and Eve had work to do - name the animals, tend the garden, as well as multiply and fill the earth which must have included child care.

It really is the oldest profession...

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Even in the Garden Adam and Eve had work to do - name the animals, tend the garden, as well as multiply and fill the earth which must have included child care.
It really is the oldest profession...

Which one, gardening or child care?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've seen lots of retirees go back to work (same or different job) because they had nothing to do and it wasn't fun after a few months.

There's also even been the odd case of lottery jack-pot winners going back to their old jobs when euphoria has given way to a sense of loss rather than one of gain.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've seen lots of retirees go back to work (same or different job) because they had nothing to do and it wasn't fun after a few months.
There's also even been the odd case of lottery jack-pot winners going back to their old jobs when euphoria has given way to a sense of loss rather than one of gain.

Both of these just floor me. There is no end to what I want to do, there is not time enough in any life to do it all. Traveling, learning and being. This can be massive, this can be small scale. We fall into the school to job to retirement way of thinking. We'll do what we want when the cycle moves to the right spot. Do and plan and live now! Elsewise you'll not know how to enjoy anything then.

[ 27. April 2015, 16:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I've seen lots of retirees go back to work (same or different job) because they had nothing to do and it wasn't fun after a few months.
There's also even been the odd case of lottery jack-pot winners going back to their old jobs when euphoria has given way to a sense of loss rather than one of gain.
Both of these just floor me. There is no end to what I want to do, there is not time enough in any life to do it all. Traveling, learning and being.

Well, I did a lot of traveling and it was fun until it became go see another monument or mountain, more of the same, and I started traveling to be with people instead of to see things.

One year back pain kept me down for a few months, at first I loved being able to just read and study, it got old real fast.

Lots of retirees find themselves drifting, purposeless, the motivation to do the work of studying marine biology or cuneiform often evaporates turns out to be weak if you will never have use for it.

Mostly what I see is people finding a job, paid or unpaid, because a job gives structure, purpose, human interaction, and variety of activity. Sitting home alone playing your flute offers none of these.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

Lots of retirees find themselves drifting, purposeless, the motivation to do the work of studying marine biology or cuneiform often evaporates turns out to be weak if you will never have use for it.

Yes! I have always wanted to do a drawing course, I took one up and have simply no motivation for it although I paid a lot of money for it.

Yet I simply love my 'work' as a volunteer puppy walker and fundraiser for Guide Dogs.

For me, being useful yet enjoying what I do to be useful is the key. I bought and read 'How To Be Idle' as recommended by Adeodatus - it didn't float my boat at all! I hate being idle, I just like doing what I want to do, when I want to do it [Smile]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Drifting, purposeless - I've been looking for that my whole life, but bloody work kept sticking its dirty nose in. Where was I? Can't remember, dreaming, drifting, breathing.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
the CEO is nice to pay his custodians $70,000 but to what makes him think they want to clean his buildings. To really be free, those custodians, and indeed all Americans, would have to be free from the requirement to work.
I'm not sure that's true. People with purpose are often happier than people with no purpose. Having to earn a living so you can feed your children is purpose that gives meaning even to cleaning someone's toilets.

Even in the Garden Adam and Eve had work to do - name the animals, tend the garden, as well as multiply and fill the earth which must have included child care.

I've seen lots of retirees go back to work (same or different job) because they had nothing to do and it wasn't fun after a few months.

I said free from the requirement to work. Give somebody $70,000 a year and they can choose to play video games professionally. Provided they move to a place with a reasonable standard of living they can even play golf professionally. I suspect we have more office buildings than people who follow their bliss by cleaning office buildings.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
To really be free

The study was not about people being free. Just what number bought happiness.
Whilst many hope for a windfall which frees them financially, not many expect it.
Frankly, I don't see the study as revealing anything unexpected. Nor is it a fight of fancy such as your free money fantasy.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0