Secret Fears of the Rich

[Ink Asylum]

An interesting article over at The Atlantic, where a former priest/sociologist attempts a judgment-free and unbiased look at the lives of the rich (at least $25 million in assets), with a focus on their problems. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/8419/1/)

The lesson that Mammon is a false or inadequate god goes back a long way, and a glossy spread in SuperYacht World is just one place to relearn it. Another is Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy, which since 1970 has minted a diverse array of studies of the wealthy. For four years, the Gates Foundation has supported an effort by the center to determine exactly how the American wealthy think and live—and in particular how, when, and to what degree they make the shift from accumulating fortunes to giving them away philanthropically. (The John Templeton Foundation, which is concerned with spiritual matters, kicked in additional funding to study correlations between wealth, philanthropy, and religion.) The project has produced one of the most remarkable documents in the center’s history: a survey that invited the very rich to write freely about how prosperity has shaped their lives and those of their children. From the anonymity of their home computers, the respondents wrote anything from a few words to a few pages, volunteering not only their net worth and sources of wealth but also their innermost hopes, fears, and anxieties.

The results of the study are not yet public, but The Atlantic was granted access to portions of the research, provided the anonymity of the subjects was strictly maintained. The center expects to present the full conclusions gradually at upcoming conferences and to publish them over the next several months. The study is titled “The Joys and Dilemmas of Wealth,” but given that the joys tend to be self-evident, it focuses primarily on the dilemmas. The respondents turn out to be a generally dissatisfied lot, whose money has contributed to deep anxieties involving love, work, and family. Indeed, they are frequently dissatisfied even with their sizable fortunes. Most of them still do not consider themselves financially secure; for that, they say, they would require on average one-quarter more wealth than they currently possess. (Remember: this is a population with assets in the tens of millions of dollars and above.) One respondent, the heir to an enormous fortune, says that what matters most to him is his Christianity, and that his greatest aspiration is “to love the Lord, my family, and my friends.” He also reports that he wouldn’t feel financially secure until he had $1 billion in the bank.

It's very easy to fall back on the typical reaction of "I'd like to have problems like that," or worse attitudes, and I tried to resist that temptation as I read the article. Instead, I thought about what I've been learning from Buddhism and tried to apply that to the rich.

It's easy to feel compassion for the poor, the sick, people who have clear problems that you don't. It's much harder when it's someone who is doing better than you are, who seems to have all sorts of advantages, and looks like they should be able to solve problems easily.

Buddhist compassion teaches us that everyone is similar because we all seek happiness and freedom from suffering. Everyone is equally deserving of happiness and helping others find happiness improves our own lives.

Many of the situations and people in the article are also perfect examples of Buddhism's Second Noble Truth: Suffering arises from attachment to desire. It seems ridiculous that someone with over $25 million would worry about financial stability while thinking that if only they had a few million more they'd be fine. Of course, if they did get those millions they'd probably continue to believe they just needed a little more. Rather than chase that extra cash they would probably have more success by reducing what luxuries they think they need to maintain that forces financial stability to be such a high hurdle.

That so many of the rich eventually turn to philanthropy is a promising sign, and if more of the rich recognized what brings true happiness we would probably see even more generosity.

[TheFlyingOrc]

An interesting article over at The Atlantic, where a former priest/sociologist attempts a judgment-free and unbiased look at the lives of the rich (at least $25 million in assets), with a focus on their problems. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/secret-fears-of-the-super-rich/8419/1/)



It's very easy to fall back on the typical reaction of "I'd like to have problems like that," or worse attitudes, and I tried to resist that temptation as I read the article. Instead, I thought about what I've been learning from Buddhism and tried to apply that to the rich.

It's easy to feel compassion for the poor, the sick, people who have clear problems that you don't. It's much harder when it's someone who is doing better than you are, who seems to have all sorts of advantages, and looks like they should be able to solve problems easily.

Buddhist compassion teaches us that everyone is similar because we all seek happiness and freedom from suffering. Everyone is equally deserving of happiness and helping others find happiness improves our own lives.

Many of the situations and people in the article are also perfect examples of Buddhism's Second Noble Truth: Suffering arises from attachment to desire. It seems ridiculous that someone with over $25 million would worry about financial stability while thinking that if only they had a few million more they'd be fine. Of course, if they did get those millions they'd probably continue to believe they just needed a little more. Rather than chase that extra cash they would probably have more success by reducing what luxuries they think they need to maintain that forces financial stability to be such a high hurdle.

That so many of the rich eventually turn to philanthropy is a promising sign, and if more of the rich recognized what brings true happiness we would probably see even more generosity.
The Christian worldview (as written, not as often practiced) is very much the same. If your security comes from material objects, then you will never be fully satisfied, and it is only by admitting that all you have to depend on is God that you'll be content.

If you think these people are miserable, you should see lottery winners - the suicide rates are above average for people who win the lottery. Now, every interaction they have they wonder if someone is being nice to them for normal reasons or because they want money. If they are in the phone book, they are constantly bombarded by strangers calling them with sob stories. Many of them, being unfamiliar with money management, are back to broke within 7-8 years.

[Ink Asylum]

If you think these people are miserable, you should see lottery winners - the suicide rates are above average for people who win the lottery. Now, every interaction they have they wonder if someone is being nice to them for normal reasons or because they want money. If they are in the phone book, they are constantly bombarded by strangers calling them with sob stories. Many of them, being unfamiliar with money management, are back to broke within 7-8 years.

That reminds me of this paragraph from the article:

One complaint that Kenny commonly hears in his practice and has found echoed in the survey results is the sense of isolation that extreme wealth can engender. “Wealth can be a barrier to connecting with other people,” writes the spouse of a tech wizard who cashed in to the tune of $80 million. “Not feeling you should share some of the stressors in your life (‘Yeah, wouldn’t I like to have your problems’), awkwardness re: who should pay at a restaurant.” The poor-little-rich-kid retort is so obvious—and seemingly so sensible—that the rich themselves often internalize it, and as a result become uncomfortable in their interactions with the non-wealthy. Once people cross a certain financial threshold, they have a tendency to hang out with one another, to enjoy the company of other people who know that money relieves some burdens but not others. This can pose particular problems for those at the lower end of the extreme-wealth scale: someone, for instance, who has “only” (I use the word advisedly) $5 million or so may find himself socializing with economic “peers” who are in fact 20 times as wealthy, and feeling pressure to spend money at a comparable rate. Perhaps that’s why, as Robert Frank notes in his 2007 book, Richistan, 20 percent of households with between $1 million and $10 million in assets in 2004 spent all their income—or more—in a frantic race to keep up with their newfound friends, the Gateses.

It's truly a shame that people with enough money to easily meet their basic necessities and leave them free to pursue true happiness instead spend it all in a futile attempt to live like people much richer than they.

[TheFlyingOrc]

It's truly a shame that people with enough money to easily meet their basic necessities and leave them free to pursue true happiness instead spend it all in a futile attempt to live like people much richer than they.

It must actually be pretty miserable not being able to interact with regular people due to guilt. I've always hoped that if I became rich, I would buy a $400-500 k home, a nice (but not super nice) car, and then largely live off the interest (which would be easy without a house payment!) and try to use the money to set up scholarships/support charities.

Of course, I'd probably instead be a selfish dickbag and act like most rich jerks. It's frightening to think that these people really are all sorts of people - some of them are probably largely like you or me. There's nothing "special" about me that would make me a good person if I was wealthy. It's unnerving to think I have that capability.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Thanks again for this article, it's really good.

A comment underneath it caught my eye:


OK, Kate.

Here are some "real" problems for you.

First of all, even though I'm "assuming" here --- using statistics alone, there's a 99.96% chance that I'm wealthier than you. FAR wealthier. Just so you get the context of what I'm about to say.

I'm not trying to *boast* that I'm very rich. (In fact, I almost always avoid it.) The only reason I'm telling you is because I want you to understand that I know what I'm talking about.

My sister got very sick two years ago, and after months and months of lots of tests and no definitive diagnosis, she passed away. But we got very little sympathy from anyone, even many of our "friends"---friends we have treated very well for years.

Months later, my nephew was the victim of an attempted kidnapping. Although it resolved well quite quickly, the trauma to our nephew and the constant fear and *worry* the family now faces cannot be described. But again, there is very little sympathy from most people.

[Just because I have a certain degree of anonymity here, I will tell you that this sort of thing, and many threats and extortion attempts, happen much more often than you will ever hear in the media---most families struggle to keep things like this private, because they don't want to attract more potential problems like this.]

After my sister died, we'd hear comments like "Well, why don't you just get tests that other people wouldn't be able to get [i.e. some tests they think are reserved for the rich that others wouldn't be able to afford]." *or* "Can't you just send her to a better doctor somewhere?" --- We live in a country where most of these things are covered anyway, and her care was, fortunately, very good [which it would have been anyway, regardless of how much money we have]. But almost no one was sympathetic. Friends, people we dealt with, and even many people in the medical field were often quite acerbic in how they treated us, as if we could just "throw money at it".

When she finally died, I could not believe how many people, instead of saying "I'm sorry for your loss" or "I feel for you" said "Well, my father died last year. It was a real struggle, but we didn't have the finances that you do." And we heard comments from some people like "Maybe now you understand what it's like for the rest of us who don't have money" and I'm even told, although I really hope it's not true, that one of our colleagues said "Give me a break. With all that money, can't he just *buy* a new sister?"

We were very hurt, and we lost a lot of people we thought were friends. But the worst is that you cannot talk about your grief with many people, because so many people feel you have no RIGHT to be hurt, no RIGHT to be grieving, and they somehow think you can just PAY for those horrible feelings to magically go away.

Instead, in times of very bad personal tragedy, you feel more lonely and disliked than ever, because instead of showing empathy, people start throwing the "You have no idea what it's like to not have money" card at you, out of the blue. [I always say, I have every idea what it's like to not have money, because for the first 43 years of my life, I had much less than the average person.]

I just fail to understand what makes people think that, right after your sister has died, they have the right to throw what are almost *accusations* at you. I cannot believe how many people actually qualified their condolences with things like, "but see? I guess now you see how difficult things are for the rest of us", as if we were immune to bad things happening to us.

I'm sure you're thinking "Well, you must have been really mean to people for them to treat you like that. You must have done *something* to bring on that kind of reaction from people." No. We have made it our life mission NOT to let our money affect us. We are as generous as we can be, and we treat everyone we deal with very well, in many cases swallowing our pride when we are insulted. But we are looked upon by many in a very negative light when we don't pick up the bill for a dinner of 20 people, and you lose friends very quickly if you only buy them a gift worth $2,000 for Christmas! Many people expect, as the article says, cars or very expensive exotic gifts.

What I'm saying is that when you are known to have money, many people tend to treat you with indignation. They act like you can buy your way out of any problem. They think that you are impervious to any bad feelings, tragedy, sorrow, depression. It seems to be an excuse to hurl scathing insults at you, or to treat you as if YOU are the reason THEY are having so many difficulties.

Kate, you talk about real problems. I have seen just as much illness and tragedy and personal hardship as many people. Much of it has come since I became wealthy in my early 40's. I have struggled with a serious personal illness since I was 13. I can tell you that I have seen both sides of the experience. Before I had money, I constantly heard people getting angry at wealthy people and saying "Must be nice" and "like they have anything to complain about---they should try out MY life". Once I became rich, it became far worse, because the attitude very quickly became an unsympathetic game of "Oh, please. You have no idea what it's like for those of us who don't have money." So often there is this implication that we can just buy our way out of any problems (how do you BUY your way out of arthritis, extortion attempts, migraines, your child's severe asthma attacks...? There is very rarely something that money can do to remedy most of these situations.)

Even though we give a huge portion of our money away, it makes little difference to the attitudes we encounter. Even if we did give ALL of our money away, the bulk of people would think we were still rich, and we would still be subject to most of the problems we encounter now.

I am not writing this to ask for sympathy. I am writing to ask people to work towards a universal UNDERSTANDING of each other, and for a rational attitude, and most of all, to OBSERVE YOUR OWN JUDGING. i wrote this so that people might have an understanding that when you're rich, it's NOT super-easy, it's NOT all champagne and parties, it's NOT happy-go-lucky problem-free life 24 hours a day. So many of us seem to JUDGE so quickly and so strongly. There seems to be this prevalence of strong judgment against everyone else, in every area of life. "How could he be so stupid to react like that?" "I had cancer for 2 years, and *I* was still doing housework. She's just lazy." "If I were her, I guarantee you I would never have raised such an anxiety-ridden child." I hear it constantly.

I don't want this to be a judgment in itself... I will be the FIRST to admit that I am just as guilty as anyone else of judgment. I do react badly from time to time, and I do speak out sometimes in a judgmental way, particularly in reaction to constant accusations and criticisms about how I should be using my money or leading my life when I have so much money---it is hard to not defend oneself.

But I am also becoming very aware of my own judgments, and it makes a difference. And, Kate, I apologize for the judgment I made towards you in my previous comment--it was unwarranted, but I let my defensiveness get the better of me, and I even noticed it as I wrote it, but I still let it happen.

In the end, I seriously believe a large percentage of our problems could be abated if we just LISTENED to ourselves and were AWARE of our JUDGMENTS AND PERCEPTIONS. I really think that this is key to our understanding of both others, and ourselves, and would lead to a much more happy and harmonious society.

Thanks for reading this.


A very personal story from a very rich man.

[Reverant]

One problem with analyzing wealth is that it's a relative concept- my wife and I live on the $1275 a month housing stipend I receive from the government as part of the post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. This technically puts us below the poverty line (especially since we get it about 10 months out of the year). Yet, I consider us ridiculously blessed by God because everything we could ask for (and more) is easily manageable. I know there are billions of people in the world that would literally kill to have our life style, yet by many Western standards we're quite poor.

I try not to begrudge the rich, because I realize that many of the world's poor would certainly begrudge my status. "That guy's worried about scraping together money to buy a plane ticket to his brother's graduation? My children shit, play, and drink in the same pond."

It's interesting this topic came up, because our pastor gave a sermon this past week in which he discussed wealthy Christians. My wife and I live in a lower income area, but we drive to a church in Chapel Hill (rich area) because it's close to the university. The sermon basically was this: Don't feel guilty about your affluence, because it's a reward from God. Just don't get attached to it. Honestly, it sounded defensive to me. After all, we're called to give up our earthly treasures for the heavenly ones!

But I'm not going to complain that they drive Audis while I still play my Xbox. Wealth is relative. The problems that wealth brings are relative as well.

[TheFlyingOrc]

One other comment I kept thinking while reading the article: Give it away!

So many of these people are absolutely miserable because of their wealth. If they literally dumped all of it (barring the inheritors who have no life skills), except maybe the last little bit, they seem like they'd be, on average, much happier. Very much Jesus and the rich young ruler.

[Ink Asylum]

That is one solution, but it conflicts with the reasonable desire for financial stability. People want to be sure they have enough to eat, enough for rent, enough to retire comfortably, enough to weather the occasional hardship. While someone making minimum wage would look at someone with $25 million and think that's pretty damn stable, the article points out how people in that bracket still think they need ~25% more to achieve stability.

Too many people strive for financial security just by chasing dollars, without adjusting their spending habits and controlling their desires. So when they do get more money they adopt more financial responsibilities and luxuries, pushing stability that much farther away.

I recall an article saying that happiness from wealth generally stops somewhere around $70k a year. That's certainly a point where you can afford a decent home in a nice neighborhood, always have food on the table, have good insurance, save for retirement, leave something for your kids, and occasionally splurge on luxuries.

[TheFlyingOrc]

That is one solution, but it conflicts with the reasonable desire for financial stability. People want to be sure they have enough to eat, enough for rent, enough to retire comfortably, enough to weather the occasional hardship. While someone making minimum wage would look at someone with $25 million and think that's pretty damn stable, the article points out how people in that bracket still think they need ~25% more to achieve stability.

Too many people strive for financial security just by chasing dollars, without adjusting their spending habits and controlling their desires. So when they do get more money they adopt more financial responsibilities and luxuries, pushing stability that much farther away.

I recall an article saying that happiness from wealth generally stops somewhere around $70k a year. That's certainly a point where you can afford a decent home in a nice neighborhood, always have food on the table, have good insurance, save for retirement, leave something for your kids, and occasionally splurge on luxuries.

Yeah, that's the level I've been trying to reach. :) If we got me up to ~70, I could easily pay off my car and have my house paid off in just a handful of years, leaving me more than prepared to have kids, with room left over for (possibly international) vacations.

After that, I will build money forts.

[Ink Asylum]

I think I could do pretty well at $70k, too. Until then, I've definitely been focusing on reducing what I consider my needs and doing without a lot of wants.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think I could do pretty well at $70k, too. Until then, I've definitely been focusing on reducing what I consider my needs and doing without a lot of wants.

If this tangent isnt' too bad -

My diet that my wife and I switched to has us spending significantly more per month on food and doctor's visits than we used to, and we've really had to cut back on spending, even with help from her parents to afford it. It's really brought into focus how little we actually NEED to survive. With the handful of things I can't get rid of - (my current home, some level of electricity, cheap food, car payment/gas, and paying bills), she and I could probably stay alive for $2500 a month or so. That would only require something like one of us working a job at $15/hour. We're really blessed that we make quite a bit more than that.

[Ink Asylum]

Going back a bit to the preacher Reverant mentioned, I agree that people shouldn't feel guilty about their wealth (provided said wealth was obtained fairly), but considering it a gift from God seems a bit...off...to me.

Granted, others know more about Christianity than I do, but from what I do understand I'd see tremendous wealth more as a test than a gift. Of course, that preacher may just be telling a wealthier congregation what they want to hear, sadly.

The Q&A book on Buddhism I read does see wealth and success as a function of karma from a previous life. If you lived well you're rewarded with a better life next time. At the same time, this isn't a free pass to be selfish and lazy in your prosperous life. Instead, you can and should be using that wealth to live a more compassionate and generous life, which will get you even closer to achieving a true Buddhist nature.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Going back a bit to the preacher Reverant mentioned, I agree that people shouldn't feel guilty about their wealth (provided said wealth was obtained fairly), but considering it a gift from God seems a bit...off...to me.

Granted, others know more about Christianity than I do, but from what I do understand I'd see tremendous wealth more as a test than a gift. Of course, that preacher may just be telling a wealthier congregation what they want to hear, sadly.

Well, I think the general idea is from the parable of the talents is "much is demanded of those to whom much is given". It's certainly an honor that you've been blessed with an amount that can make a real change in the world - the same way a person can be blessed with a talent or being born with connections (think you would have heard of Ben Stiller if Jerry Stiller hadn't been famous). If you think of it that way, rather than "Holy crap I am so super awesome rich thanks Jesus for my speedboat", you're pretty good with the doctrine.

[Ink Asylum]

True. If the preacher was saying that I hope the message was received by the congregation in the spirit it was given.

[Reverant]

That was his intention, thankfully. In my mind he didn't stress that wealth wasn't just for the benefit for the individual enough, but the point did get across. Wealth is a treasure that's to be given back freely. Having a rich congregation, for example, allows the church to fund some excellent foreign ministries.

[Kelegacy]

Problem is, with more money comes more things you can afford. Out if college, I resorted to a low paying job just to pay the bills and lived in a small 1 bedroom apartment. When I advanced to a new position and made more money, I moved into a big 2 bedroom apartment by myself. When I met my wife and now had two incomes, we bought a house. I get a raise, we have a kid around the same time. Now I have a much nicer job with a good raise and we have another child coming. It truly doesn't ever seem like enough.

If I were to double or triple my salary today, I would probably wind up buying a bigger house and i would be in the same boat--wanting more money because after paying bills the disposable part seems small. Meanwhile, had I been living in my small 1 bedroom still, I would be banking quite a bit.

[Ink Asylum]

Well, you discovered the solution right there. If you doubled or tripled your salary but resisted the urge to upgrade your car or house you'd be much more financially stable. When deciding on a new purchase it's important to weigh the possible happiness gain from owning the new object with the happiness loss by lowering your financial stability or increasing your debt.

Too many people live beyond their means, a lot manage to live within their means, but very few actually manage to live below their means.

[Deadend]

That was a damn good read.

One of the things I liked about it was that it helped bring wealth down to earth, that the right people aren't better people, or worse people, just people whom in many cases had some luck to be born into wealth or worked for a company that thew millions in stock money at them.

I don't suddenly feel pity for the wealthy, as they are dealing with problems much higher up the hierarchy of needs than most of us are, and we also have some of the same worries, just not as great.

It's also disappointing that the mega-wealthy can be unhappy, I think part of the anger toward them is due to them failing to live up to the dreams of how money can make us happier in a consumer driven society.

[Ink Asylum]

I don't think pity is what any of them were looking for when they shared their stories. I think they would be satisfied with understanding and compassion. While there are people who believe that their success or wealth makes them better than other people, there are plenty of poor or average people who think something they are or do makes them better than others.

Take someone with flaws and give them a billion dollars and their flaws won't go away, but the damage those flaws will do can be greater. That's what I fear about immense wealth and power. Knowing the damage people can do to others on their own it can be horrifying to see what they can do to thousands or millions when they have the influence to do so.

At the same time, take a truly good person and give them a billion dollars and I don't think it will change them. They'll remain humble and generous, only now they can give more to a wider range of people.

[ShivaX]

I don't suddenly feel pity for the wealthy, as they are dealing with problems much higher up the hierarchy of needs than most of us are, and we also have some of the same worries, just not as great.

It's also disappointing that the mega-wealthy can be unhappy, I think part of the anger toward them is due to them failing to live up to the dreams of how money can make us happier in a consumer driven society.

I'd say that beyond not having to worry about what are truely neccessities, the wealthy are dealing with the same issues as everyone else. Feeling the need to "keep up with the Joneses" doesn't really make me feel sorry for them.

Now the dude who shared his story about his sister dying was pretty terrible, but then it just sounds like his "friends" are awful people. I think it was interesting that he was convinced giving away most of the money would result in people still thinking he was rich, but then again it sounds like he travels in circles of truely shitty human beings.

And I don't think the anger directed at them is them failing to live up to other people's dreams. If anything it would be them actually doing it. It really depends on the person, but most anger is directed at the rich due to their ability to disproportionally influence the world to better themselves over everyone else (or at least thats the view).

People get mad at Wallstreet people because they aren't buying enough yachts and aren't happy enough. They get mad at them because they're fucking everyone else over and buying off politicians to maintain the status quo.

[Deadend]

Pity was probably the wrong term, but I do think I get them a bit more, even though the survey may not end up being very useful as it only had 150 responses from my understanding, and there could be something in common with those who didn't respond, like they could all have been sitting around going "sorry, I don't have time for your internet survey, I'm too busy snorting cocaine off of sexy ladies on top of expensive cars on my yacht."

but I do agree that money doesn't fix everything, and it seems to be just like Biggy Smalls laid out in his work, (see related chart)
http://jasonfarnsworth.com/random_pics/rap_lyrics_graphs/more_money_more_problems.jpg

So I wonder what it is that makes people unable to just sit back and go "I have what I need and want and feel content." That there is something going on that makes contentment out of reach for a majority of people.

[Bone]

I think I could do pretty well at $70k, too. Until then, I've definitely been focusing on reducing what I consider my needs and doing without a lot of wants.

Like others have said, the tendency is to grow to fill the space, just like a goldfish in a bigger bowl. As I have slowly made more money I was wondering why I seemed to have less of it around. And just like this article says, it seems that me and the ex were spending like people who made just a little more than us.

Only now have I dialed back to a more manageable lifestyle, and have started to slowly amass savings. And that literally means the first time in 12 years where I've not lived paycheck to paycheck. If I can get even smarter with my money and investments I may actually build wealth and have something to give away. And that's a money goal I'm very OK with.

[Ink Asylum]

So I wonder what it is that makes people unable to just sit back and go "I have what I need and want and feel content." That there is something going on that makes contentment out of reach for a majority of people.

The article makes a point about how the humans as a species just haven't conditioned well to being able to stop with just enough.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense. There's very rarely any such thing as stability for wild animals. Some need to eat almost constantly just to have enough energy to survive. Many predators need to make the most out of each kill because it might be a while before they get another chance. We're conditioned to consume and breed as much as possible because animals just aren't able to predict very far into the future.

If you just go through life without thinking too much about what you're doing and trying to examine your life objectively it's very easy to fall into instinctual patterns.

[Chris_D]

$70k sounds good to me :).

But, really, it gels with what I've understood about life up until now. Based on research, I'm led to understand that true poverty can make you pretty damn miserable, although I can't honestly say I've ever experienced it. But, beyond that, once you can consistently provide food and shelter from you and your loved ones then it's the foundation of family, friends, and job satisfaction that have the most influence on your day-to-day happiness.

I mean, whether I can afford a couple of the newest 360 releases for $120, or only buy a couple of older games discounted or secondhand for $20, well it doesn't necessarily make me more or less happy.

[Bone]

70k is fine, then you start looking at houses, vacationing more, replace your beater with a sensible new Honda... trust me- it's all too easy to grow out of. It also really depends where you live on that 70k.

[VerseD]

“A man is happiest when there is a balance between his needs and his possessions. And this is best done by learning to value the free things in life: the mountains, laughter, poetry, wine offered by a friend, older and fatter women.”

It's also disappointing that the mega-wealthy can be unhappy, I think part of the anger toward them is due to them failing to live up to the dreams of how money can make us happier in a consumer driven society.

I like this! Rather than face the emptiness of our goals, it is much easier to accuse others of doing it wrong. And if anything, this must be part of the dissatisfaction of the wealthy -- "I've made millions, but I am still unfulfilled -- how can this be? I must need more!"

But, really, it gels with what I've understood about life up until now. Based on research, I'm led to understand that true poverty can make you pretty damn miserable, although I can't honestly say I've ever experienced it.

I think it's powerlessness that makes one unhappy. Poor and rich, we're all pretty jolly, until something comes along that cannot be prevented. For the wealthy, there is always death, and that concern over "security" mentioned in the article -- but people without means can be powerless in the face of littler and more common problems: hunger, treatable illnesses, shelter. I'm happy in the cheapest environs, but I would be miserable if I was powerless to feed my child.

[Ink Asylum]

70k is fine, then you start looking at houses, vacationing more, replace your beater with a sensible new Honda... trust me- it's all too easy to grow out of. It also really depends where you live on that 70k.

Well, yes, people do that, but it generally doesn't make them happier. Not compared to how unhappy they're making themselves by taking on more financial responsibilities.

Take the car for instance. The difference in happiness between having no car (in a place you need one) and a beat up old car is pretty huge. You can now go places whenever you want, work in a much larger radius, have dependable transportation during emergencies, etc. All for, say, $5000.

Unfortunately, the car has poor mileage and breaks down a lot. So you buy a better car for $10,000. That relieves some of the stresses of your junker, but it's probably not twice as much happiness as when you went from no car to any car.

Now you've got dependable wheels that have good mileage and rarely need repairs. What more will a $15,000 car give you?

You have to spend more and more money chasing after diminishing returns of happiness, until eventually you're making yourself unhappier because you're taking on debt, still thinking just a few more purchases will work.

Alternately, when you feel the desire for a nicer car, you could convince yourself that it isn't worthwhile and you're happy with what you have. That's completely free and will probably make you much happier, consistently, than any sports car.

[Ink Asylum]

I like this! Rather than face the emptiness of our goals, it is much easier to accuse others of doing it wrong. And if anything, this must be part of the dissatisfaction of the wealthy -- "I've made millions, but I am still unfulfilled -- how can this be? I must need more!"

Especially when they look at fellow millionaires, or people making a bit more than them, and they all SEEM happy.

Realizing that many people you believe are happier than you actually have the same worries and doubts should make a lot of people stop and think: "Wait, he has all that and he's still miserable? Maybe wealth isn't the solution."

[Vigil80]

I don't consider myself to be poor, though very little would have to change to get me there. I'm lucky to be in my current situation.

Having said that, I've never made a secret of my (intense) desire for great financial freedom and success. I don't doubt for a moment that it brings problems of its own, and I don't expect it to make life a carefree nirvana. But, as I often say to my friends and family, I look forward to trying on some different problems for size from the current set that I've had for years now.

Opponent that I am of resenting the wealthy for nothing other than their wealth, I have to say that I perceive some disparity, perhaps in spite of the study's implications. There are problems that we may only think more money will solve, and problems that more money does, in fact, solve. I don't think that rich and poor necessarily have those in equivalent ratios. In other words, where a well-to-do man might just need a reality check, a poorer fellow actually could be more fulfilled with the extra money.

[KamaItachi]

I think the 25% plus for financial security is spot on. I'm actually just shy of $70k and honestly, I keep thinking if I had another 10-20 grand a year I'd be set. I am the sole income earner in my family at the moment, and pretty much everything after taxes, various car/insurance payments and food goes on my kids.

I know my kids are happy, and that helps a lot. I also do not have a credit card, so I know that anything I spend, I'm spending the money that I know I have. The only thing I've taken a loan for, so far is my car. It can take a little bit longer to afford things, but I'd rather live with next to nothing that I know I own than have all sorts of baubles that I'm going to be paying off for the next 5 years.

[Ink Asylum]

Opponent that I am of resenting the wealthy for nothing other than their wealth, I have to say that I perceive some disparity, perhaps in spite of the study's implications. There are problems that we may only think more money will solve, and problems that more money does, in fact, solve. I don't think that rich and poor necessarily have those in equivalent ratios. In other words, where a well-to-do man might just need a reality check, a poorer fellow actually could be more fulfilled with the extra money.

I don't think anyone here, or in the article, disputes that. Money certainly solves some problems. We all have basic needs that, when fulfilled, make us very happy.

[Vigil80]

I don't think anyone here, or in the article, disputes that. Money certainly solves some problems. We all have basic needs that, when fulfilled, make us very happy.
Part of my point is that it goes beyond the fulfillment of mere basic needs, though that might be tiptoeing on semantics. "Wage slave," while sometimes a derogatory term, is also a very real phenomenon, I believe.

I also think that in the stories of people winning the lottery and having their lives ruined somehow, the core problem was with the person, not the money. But that often is not the sense given by the storyteller.

[Matthias]

I think one of the greatest ways to learn the OP's lesson is to grow up first in poverty, then in an upper-middle class suburb, and go to friend's houses a lot. My parents could only securely afford a house in the "lowest tier" of the suburb, so everyone seemed to have wealthier parents with more toys and better houses- several even had boats or lakehouses. They seemed so much happier with life. Once you spend a few afternoons or nights at their house, however, the parents start to get used to seeing you around, and the little domestic stresses start to show more- you see parents fighting with each other about various things, often including finances, and can hear them yelling and banging things around. You hear about their loved ones getting sick and dying, and (what you as a kid think is) their vast wealth being unable to help them.

None of those families were any better off than mine, although mine certainly fought and had every other problem you can imagine. It was amazing to go from a diet of beans and rice in New Mexico to being able to afford steaks, and everyone else around affording to eat out all the time, and noticing that nothing changes. The scenery is just nicer.

[Chris_D]

I think it's powerlessness that makes one unhappy. Poor and rich, we're all pretty jolly, until something comes along that cannot be prevented. For the wealthy, there is always death, and that concern over "security" mentioned in the article -- but people without means can be powerless in the face of littler and more common problems: hunger, treatable illnesses, shelter. I'm happy in the cheapest environs, but I would be miserable if I was powerless to feed my child.

I definitely agree with the thrust of your post. I would only recall that I've run into research before (nothing which I can remember the source) that says middle income people are, on average, happier than rich people. It seems to go against the idea that rich people are able to solve more of their own problems than middle income people, however, it's likely that being rich brings about it's own set of problems. Some are described in the opener like increased social pressure from peers.

[Ox]

I know people who would qualify to be surveyed for this story (although I, personally, am not that wealthy). The most affecting problem is the one about raising kids -- there's no good way to deal with that.

There's one more problem with giving it all away: what if something bad happens tomorrow? You don't want to be impoverished by a sudden illness or lawsuit. So you'd want to keep some sort of cushion to ensure you remain middle-class no matter what happens; that's just good sense. But any such cushion would have to be large enough you'd still effectively be considered 'rich'.

[ShivaX]

I know people who would qualify to be surveyed for this story (although I, personally, am not that wealthy). The most affecting problem is the one about raising kids -- there's no good way to deal with that.

There's one more problem with giving it all away: what if something bad happens tomorrow? You don't want to be impoverished by a sudden illness or lawsuit. So you'd want to keep some sort of cushion to ensure you remain middle-class no matter what happens; that's just good sense. But any such cushion would have to be large enough you'd still effectively be considered 'rich'.

I recall hearing some theologian saying greed was the most dangerous of the sins because of the reason you mentioned above. Fear of needing money prevents one from losing their attachment to it or something to that effect. Basically wealth diverts one's attention from God towards earthly issues. No matter how much you have, you always feel safer with more and spend time and effort that could be spent elsewhere acquiring more wealth.

[VerseD]

I know people who would qualify to be surveyed for this story (although I, personally, am not that wealthy). The most affecting problem is the one about raising kids -- there's no good way to deal with that.

"Daughters can use up ten percent more than a man can make in any normal occupation," wrote Heinlein, "regardless of the amount."

[Vulture]

as someone who's primary problems and sources of unhappiness has "always" been the absence of money, i'm finding it hard to be sympathetic to a rich person's situation. the thought of being sympathetic is actually upsetting me.

i'm not poor, but i have been, and i would consider myself just above poor with a family, and in that situation most of life's biggest problems are concerns of lack of finances. i'm finding it nearly unimaginable to picture being more or the same "unhappy" as i am now if i were rich. not to fall on the "i wish i had those problems" mentality too hard, but i honestly have to say i do wish. if my biggest sources of unhappiness were fears of exploitation, rude people, shitty friends, and death of all things... that sounds pretty cushy. i'm pretty sure i'm surrounded by rude people as is now, and have had my share of shitty friends... i've had close people die, and had money exploited from me... i'm sure everyone has. and where am i supposed to start to attribute more understanding to rich people?

or am i being asked not to be a dick to rich people? that should be the distinction i think. i can get behind "not being a dick" to anybody that doesn't directly offend me, but the article is seemingly asking for a level of understanding it is assuming that the rich do not get... affirmative action of understanding for rich people... :(

[Chris_D]

But, from your description it sounds like you are closer to poverty than to, say, middle-income and I'm guessing that there has never been a study that says people suffering from poverty are happier than rich people.

[Bone]

as someone who's primary problems and sources of unhappiness has "always" been the absence of money, i'm finding it hard to be sympathetic to a rich person's situation. the thought of being sympathetic is actually upsetting me.

i'm not poor, but i have been, and i would consider myself just above poor with a family, and in that situation most of life's biggest problems are concerns of lack of finances. i'm finding it nearly unimaginable to picture being more or the same "unhappy" as i am now if i were rich. not to fall on the "i wish i had those problems" mentality too hard, but i honestly have to say i do wish. if my biggest sources of unhappiness were fears of exploitation, rude people, shitty friends, and death of all things... that sounds pretty cushy. i'm pretty sure i'm surrounded by rude people as is now, and have had my share of shitty friends... i've had close people die, and had money exploited from me... i'm sure everyone has. and where am i supposed to start to attribute more understanding to rich people?

or am i being asked not to be a dick to rich people? that should be the distinction i think. i can get behind "not being a dick" to anybody that doesn't directly offend me, but the article is seemingly asking for a level of understanding it is assuming that the rich do not get... affirmative action of understanding for rich people... :(

The point is, the problems that affect us the most are fundamentally the same, but people assume rich people can buy their way out of them. And that they get treated as if they aren't allowed to feel that way.

It's sort of like how we shouldn't blame poor people for being poor, but some people like to say "well you should have planned better or stayed in school or made better choices". It's about having a little empathy for a situation completely different than your own.

[Matthias]

The point is, the problems that affect us the most are fundamentally the same, but people assume rich people can buy their way out of them. And that they get treated as if they aren't allowed to feel that way.

It's sort of like how we shouldn't blame poor people for being poor, but some people like to say "well you should have planned better or stayed in school or made better choices". It's about having a little empathy for a situation completely different than your own.

This. Being rich does not make you immune to the human condition. Illness doesn't ignore you, and many many illnesses are still serious enough that all the money in the world can't save you from them.

The point isn't that we should "feel sorry" for rich people. It's that we should stop feeling like they somehow deserve the horrible things that happen to them, simply because they own more green paper than we do. The green paper doesn't help all the time, and causes problems that replace those it solves- I'm guessing no one has ever held your kid for ransom, expecting a large payout. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, no matter how much cash they have to spare.

Vulture, your statement that you've had family members die and been extorted just like these people have is evidence against your own argument- I'm sure those times were extremely trying for you- do you imagine that losing a loved one is any easier when you have more money? Do you think it may even be harder, to throw as much money you don't care about as possible at a person you do, and have it not help, then have people come up to you and ask unsympathetically ask why you didn't just throw more at the problem? How would that make you feel? Would you be consoled by your remaining millions?

At any rate, again, it's not to say that you should feel better off than anyone with that kind of money; it's just that you should still give them and all other humans a basic level of understanding and empathy.

[VerseD]

I don't think anyone is arguing that wealth is as pitiable a state as poverty. The point was that very wealthy people generally are unhappy, and it is only by understanding why that one can avoid falling into the trapped dream of capitalism: that more material wealth will make one happier.

Remember that the article suggested 70,000 dollars per year as the peak of happiness, where all basic needs can be satisfied in relative comfort. Picture a graph falling away to either side -- into the impotence of poverty on the left, and the self-conscious frivolity of wealth on the other.

[Vulture]

The point isn't that we should "feel sorry" for rich people. It's that we should stop feeling like they somehow deserve the horrible things that happen to them, simply because they own more green paper than we do.
that's not the impression i got from the article. i got the impression that it was a plea for understanding, or the understanding that being rich doesn't automatically make you happy. i didn't think it had to do with any sort of retribution. i think the notion is a pretty well known social fact. i mean, we all have seen "pretty woman..."

Vulture, your statement that you've had family members die and been extorted just like these people have is evidence against your own argument- I'm sure those times were extremely trying for you- do you imagine that losing a loved one is any easier when you have more money?
i imagine if i, say had a father die, then it would be easier to deal with if there was disposable income for say, plane tickets, hotels, and burial costs. then i would just be left with having to deal with the reality of a dead father, and not a dead father and money concerns.

Do you think it may even be harder, to throw as much money you don't care about as possible at a person you do, and have it not help, then have people come up to you and ask unsympathetically ask why you didn't just throw more at the problem? How would that make you feel? Would you be consoled by your remaining millions?
this is a separate issue from grief. other people being rude.

At any rate, again, it's not to say that you should feel better off than anyone with that kind of money; it's just that you should still give them and all other humans a basic level of understanding and empathy.

i understand and agree with your point, but the article is not constructed that way. it is not advocating understanding for everyone, but for rich people.

[Vulture]

. The point was that people are generally are unhappy...
edited the quote to reflect my opinion.

[Panthera]

There are certainly people out there that could use more empathy for the poor. I don't think the article said anything about that either way. It said nothing about which problem is worse, just that the wealthy have problems and they're not necessarily intuitive.

[Goronmon]

it is not advocating understanding for everyone, but for rich people.

I'm not getting this complaint here. They picked a topic and are focusing on it. Are you arguing that any discussion that involves talking about 'rich' people must also discuss 'poor' people as well?

[Vulture]

There are certainly people out there that could use more empathy for the poor. I don't think the article said anything about that either way. It said nothing about which problem is worse, just that the wealthy have problems and they're not necessarily intuitive.

that's well worded.

it''s hard for me to think sympathetically about it, and absent form comparison, as i'm not rich and can only put my own life's experiences in the complaints outlined by the rich. the complaints in this personal way of adapting the alien world to mine, seem insignificant and pretty much what anyone would experience. so therefore, i have trouble understanding why the article has any informative merit.

[Vulture]

I'm not getting this complaint here. They picked a topic and are focusing on it. Are you arguing that any discussion that involves talking about 'rich' people must also discuss 'poor' people as well?


edit:
no but this discussion is framed about comparative happiness.

the article, not citing "poor" though as the control, but middle class.
"Taken together, the survey responses make a compelling case that being fantastically wealthy—especially when the wealth is inherited rather than earned—is not a great deal more fulfilling than being merely prosperous. "
i guess i could support my case by saying: the middle class by definition has more in common with concerns about money, with the poor than the rich. as middleclass and poor are only removed by a single lawsuit, death, illness, injury, or economic condition. the middle class may be able to eat comfortably and healthy, but they are aware of how close they are to not being so.

[Matthias]

that's not the impression i got from the article. i got the impression that it was a plea for understanding, or the understanding that being rich doesn't automatically make you happy. i didn't think it had to do with any sort of retribution. i think the notion is a pretty well known social fact. i mean, we all have seen "pretty woman..."

I'd agree except for the quotes from the study participants themselves talking about people all but (or sometimes flat out) saying that they deserve to have their child kidnapped and held for ransom, and they shouldn't have a tantalizing amount of money if they don't want that to happen. Clearly there's an issue with people feeling they deserve retribution of some kind.


i imagine if i, say had a father die, then it would be easier to deal with if there was disposable income for say, plane tickets, hotels, and burial costs. then i would just be left with having to deal with the reality of a dead father, and not a dead father and money concerns.

As someone who watched his father lose his father, I can say that even though my family was surviving on odd jobs and he had to spend months working off the plane ticket he bought to see my grandfather, my father's grief was pretty much entirely concerned with the loss of his father. There are ways to make money back if you work hard enough. You can't bring a loved one back, and it's a personal choice to place the two issues anywhere near on par.


this is a separate issue from grief. other people being rude.

No, this is very much part of the issue- many types of grief are universal. People coming up to you while you're grieving and showing no sympathy for you because you should have had enough money to cure the loved one is not a universal problem, and is entirely man causing their fellow man more grief than needs exist.

We actually run into a bit of this problem now that my family has clawed itself out of the poverty gutter in which the rest of my father's family seems content to dwell. We're not well off by any means, but my extended family tends to expect that my family doesn't have any problems simply because dad had the ambition to leave the trailer park.

i understand and agree with your point, but the article is not constructed that way. it is not advocating understanding for everyone, but for rich people.

Do you really need the article to hold your hand and advocate understanding for people at your income level or lower? I was under the impression that there were quite a few articles out there yelling "won't someone think of the the middle class?!" I furthermore doubt that you've never heard of soup kitchens and other charity endeavors for those homeless and poverty-stricken.

It's pretty clear the article calls for more understanding for the upper class as humans because a) it's not the status quo for people to think they need it and b) it's covering a study that set out to test the common sense "more money, fewer problems" hypothesis.

[Vulture]

I'd agree except for the quotes from the study participants themselves talking about people all but (or sometimes flat out) saying that they deserve to have their child kidnapped and held for ransom, and they shouldn't have a tantalizing amount of money if they don't want that to happen. Clearly there's an issue with people feeling they deserve retribution of some kind.

i don't feel it's retribution. i honest to god think it's just plain human nastiness. there are plenty of reasons for a person to be nasty to you, rich just happens to be one of them. any number of personal life realities can illicit nastiness. if it's a matter of degree or magnitude, that could be debated however. if you contend that the rich are subject to more/greater nastiness than someone with less of a savings, than i can attribute any other situation to a person not dependent on income that would probably illicit more/greater nastiness.

the issue of income causing a prejudicial nastiness to someone with more money in the first place can go both ways however, as it's just as common for a rich person to be nasty to a middle class person for the same prejudices. to advocate for the rich only ignores the problem of class in the first place, if your argument is dependent on social interaction. but the article is NOT just about interaction. it's more a broad, undefined, and unfocused issue of "unhappiness." which leaves room for the anecdotal evidence of "people are mean to rich people :sadface:"

As someone who watched his father lose his father, I can say that even though my family was surviving on odd jobs and he had to spend months working off the plane ticket he bought to see my grandfather, my father's grief was pretty much entirely concerned with the loss of his father. There are ways to make money back if you work hard enough. You can't bring a loved one back, and it's a personal choice to place the two issues anywhere near on par.
this is entirely anecdotal, and i could give 4 matching contradicting anecdotes. but i don't want to. i will say, that personal experience of mine, informs my opinion that money does indeed add another layer of consideration to death. as anything that requires money, naturally means considering...money. and death most certainly involves money. it strikes me as insincere to the reality of a situations to say someone is entirely concerned with grieving a loved one, and not money; as if this were true they would be predisposed to doing "un-thought out things" with money.. like giving it all away to a grieving family member.. bad example but you see what i'm saying. if your father was not considering money, he would not know he had to work that month for the ticket. he had to have considered it, to make it a reality. by your definition, your father was turned into a useless human wracked with mourning. but he wasn't because, he was apparently a functioning modern human being.


We actually run into a bit of this problem now that my family has clawed itself out of the poverty gutter in which the rest of my father's family seems content to dwell. We're not well off by any means, but my extended family tends to expect that my family doesn't have any problems simply because dad had the ambition to leave the trailer park.
sounds like they are jealous that your dad doesn't have to pay for trailer fees, pumping fees, and shitty neighbors with dangerous dogs... oh and tornadoes. :p i didn't intentionally frame my responses in this way, but the anecdote begs the question: which would you rather have? trailer park life with it's dangers and risks and family members not being jealous, or a comfortable safe house with jealous family?



Do you really need the article to hold your hand and advocate understanding for people at your income level or lower? I was under the impression that there were quite a few articles out there yelling "won't someone think of the the middle class?!" I furthermore doubt that you've never heard of soup kitchens and other charity endeavors for those homeless and poverty-stricken.
i guess, as a reader of the article, i had these pieces of knowledge before reading the article:
1. people should be treated with common dignity
2. income doesn't make a person "better"
3. 1 and 2 are common sense.

so, having that info beforehand, it became puzzling to me why i was being informed that the rich have these problems related to 1 and 2. articles about soup kitchens, the middle class, they are not articles about dignity, and character; they are about... less common sense topics, such as: survival.

It's pretty clear the article calls for more understanding for the upper class as humans because a) it's not the status quo for people to think they need it and b) it's covering a study that set out to test the common sense "more money, fewer problems" hypothesis.
granted, a cerebral palsy patient, it's understood they need understanding, but at what measure is the disparity of need worth a discussion? if the assumption is that rich people can buy away their problems.. then the discussion should be: "idiots can have bad ideas"

[Goronmon]

i guess, as a reader of the article, i had these pieces of knowledge before reading the article:
1. people should be treated with common dignity
2. income doesn't make a person "better"
3. 1 and 2 are common sense.

so, having that info beforehand, it became puzzling to me why i was being informed that the rich have these problems related to 1 and 2.

Why would it be puzzling that not everyone thinks the same way you do? I really hope your whole problem with this article isn't based off that assumption that because you believe in the 3 points you mention above, that it's pointless for anyone else to discuss issues related to them.

Edit: And for Pete's sake, the Shift key is there for a reason.

[Vulture]

Why would it be puzzling that not everyone thinks the same way you do? I really hope your whole problem with this article isn't based off that assumption that because you believe in the 3 points you mention above, that it's pointless for anyone else to discuss issues related to them.

Edit: And for Pete's sake, the Shift key is there for a reason.

not nearly how you characterized it. the article is extensively saying "rich people have problems too, ok?" and, "these problems are surprisingly "human" (observe anecdotes)"

i, and other people gathered through existing as human beings, that rich people, yes, probably have problems too. rich people also have to pee, shit, and masturbate; albeit, possibly all 3 simultaneously and with the services of a verbally contracted agreement with a service provider. my problem is more to do with the complaint, and it generally being universal complains. if the article was focused on the strange human condition of some needing 25% more income than they have, into perpetuity; then that would be an interesting article. but it's not.

the article is fundamentally, and as you said it, about rich people's lives being hard, and harder than you would realize. the problem comes in when it lists the hardships as anecdotes, and as problems that well, anyone would have. if the article was more about how rich people have problems too, without the assumption of ignorance, then i guess i would feel less strongly about it, as it wouldn't be suggesting to me to "think about the rich kids," before i say something insensitive.

the shift key exists for proper nouns. it's only other function is as a typing "speed bump" for every sentence. the period serves it's purpose of marking the end of my barely formed thoughts. uppercase letters at the beginning of a sentence are grammatical appendices left from a time when it took no added effort to make "stylized" "bigger" letters at the beginning of sentences.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

My fear of rich people isn't secret.

... wait a second.

[burger]

Does this involve gray poupon?

[TheFlyingOrc]

the shift key exists for proper nouns. it's only other function is as a typing "speed bump" for every sentence. the period serves it's purpose of marking the end of my barely formed thoughts. uppercase letters at the beginning of a sentence are grammatical appendices left from a time when it took no added effort to make "stylized" "bigger" letters at the beginning of sentences.

Your sentences are harder to read, you dummy. I am not reading your posts because you didn't bother to learn something that, by taking a tiny bit of effort a decade ago, I do without thinking about it. Take the time and learn to capitalize your sentences.

[burger]

the shift key exists for proper nouns. it's only other function is as a typing "speed bump" for every sentence. the period serves it's purpose of marking the end of my barely formed thoughts. uppercase letters at the beginning of a sentence are grammatical appendices left from a time when it took no added effort to make "stylized" "bigger" letters at the beginning of sentences.

Didn't realize communicating in a clear and easy to read manner was analogous to a vestigial organ. :p

[Vulture]

Didn't realize communicating in a clear and easy to read manner was analogous to a vestigial organ. :p

hey, there's being clear, then there's being redundant. it's not my fault your eyes are torqued to recognize a sentence only by the presence of a period and a capital letter, but instead read it as some sort of strangely long abbreviation. certainly we don't need to capitalize every letter of the first word of the sentence of holy word anymore. certainly you can't embellish said capital letters with a keyboard. if we could i would capitalize. but we can't, and so, what's the point of it? the metaphor is disgustingly apt, except for the part where capital letters can potentially kill us, which they can.

it's a subject that's almost worth it's own thread. it's certainly a subject i have unhealthy amounts of thought into, and admittedly, it all really stems from laziness and poor typing technique... but i will argue to death that i'm right in typing as above. :P

[Bone]

You aren't e.e. cummings, and even he wasn't all that great. Your chosen communication style isn't avoiding redundancy, it's avoiding readability.

[Matthias]

You aren't e.e. cummings, and even he wasn't all that great. Your chosen communication style isn't avoiding redundancy, it's avoiding readability.

Particularly because (at least on my machine) the site uses a sans-serif font with rather uniform glyph shapes and very short terminals. It's a pretty font, but it's not really designed to assist in parsing multiple lines of text.

At this point, capitalization isn't just a redundant artifact of handscribed tomes. Typographers (for the most part) design their capital letters to stick out from the rest of the pack ever so subtly, specifically to help you parse a separation in not only sentences, but quotations, questions, proper nouns and other forms of new ideas. Indeed, with electronic text being such that many full stops show up as 2x2pxl squares in a world of ever-shrinking pixel pitch, the need for capitalization is arguably more important. Either way, I'm not aware of any manuscript practice that involved embellishing every single capital letter on a page; to my knowledge, it was only ever the first letter of a chapter. That being said, there are several ways you can embellish any letter you decide to in today's modern forum environment, including Alternate Font, Differing Color, or modifying the Typeface Itself, all much faster than a poor scribe could doodle around a glyph. Of course, none of these techniques (including ancient doodling) aid in readability, which is probably why the monks didn't waste time on any but the very initial letters of large sections of text. of course, if you really cared about redundancy, you wouldn't put an extra line between paragraphs- it causes added keypresses that don't add any more meaning than a capital letter does, and besides, isn't it everyone else's fault if they don't visually parse where one major idea or statement ends and another begins? while we're at it, let's get rid of the query, since it should be obvious based on sentence structure whether the sentence is meant to be declaratory or interrogative. we don't want to give any unnecessary clues about how to read our sentences, do we. another good way to save keypresses would be to start eliminating spaces between sentences.since our friend the full stop is there anyway, people should be able to separate the statements out just fine.indeed,we can probably start skipping spaces after commas as well,andeliminatingspacesbetweenwordswherethere'sa lmostcertainlynoalternatewaysofgroupingtheletterst oformdifferentwordsisagoodideatoo.eveniftheoccasio naloverlapoccurs,itshouldbeuptothereadertofigureou twhatyoumean-whatyouhavetosayiscertainlyworththeextratimeittake sthemtoparsetheblockofascii,eventhoughit'sapparent lynotworthyourtimetoformatittolongexistingreadabil itystandards,becausehittingallofthoseextrabuttonsi sjusttoomuchdamnwork.

[burger]

A new low for the forum...we're now defending the use of capital letters.

[Matthias]

A new low for the forum...we're now defending the use of capital letters.

I'd rather that than defend the disuse of them.

[burger]

I'd rather that than defend the disuse of them.

That was my point...we're now forced to defend their use...what's next? Punctuation?

[Ox]

the article is fundamentally, and as you said it, about rich people's lives being hard, and harder than you would realize. the problem comes in when it lists the hardships as anecdotes, and as problems that well, anyone would have. if the article was more about how rich people have problems too, without the assumption of ignorance, then i guess i would feel less strongly about it, as it wouldn't be suggesting to me to "think about the rich kids," before i say something insensitive.
Huh? You originally said you can't feel sympathy for anyone who's problems are less than yours on some Grand Universal Scale of Suffering. I was originally curious about how my wealth and constant wracking pain match up against your hopefully good health and poverty, but now you see to be saying you can't feel sympathy for anecdotal stories of suffering. So what; you'd be moved by an article about how 27% of parents worth $25 million have had their kids kidnapped and held for ransom, but one of those parents talking you through the ordeal leaves you unmoved? If so, you have an unusual pattern of emotional reaction.

I particularly don't get your complaint about the "assumption of ignorance." Doesn't the very act of communicating normally imply the audience is ignorant of what the speaker is about to impart? Would you prefer an article that said, "As you know, the rich also suffer problems. I'll tell you about these problems, which you already know all about. Reading this article is going to be a complete waste of your time because you will not learn anything"?

[Vulture]

snip

my understanding is that capital letters at the beginning of sentences was developed as a reflection of the authority of the word of god. it was not by my understanding, designed as a functional use to separate ideas from one another. that concept had already been hashed out, long, way long before. no, monks did not develop this written technique as a way to allow you to "skim' through a bible, or 'read it "efficiently."

however, today it is used in this manner. as you say, font wizards take this idea into account. but it is only taken into account for the reason that it is a part of our language already. and it is there already, for reasons above. its purpose now is no more for contextual understanding as it is about consistency.

if a period and 2 spaces, and a capital letter is JUST enough for you to understand a lump of sentences, then i contend that you are "reading wrong." if when you take away one of that component of separation, all flow and meaning is lost, then i don't know what to say to you.

and why the selected omission of the shift key, as opposed to any other of the examples you listed? without going in and defending my reasoning with each example you redundantly listed, i will restate redundantly that it is a redundancy. it's redundant within the format, as the separation of ideas is clearly put fourth with a period, and 2 spaces.

but, why within that, the shift key, and not the double space bar? the double space, even though it is mechanically redundant, is not symbolically redundant. or, it is only found after a sentence, and exists nowhere else as a part of a normal use of sentences as a list. periods not as ends of sentences can exist, and capital letters can as well. why not get rid of the period then? the period is a conveniently placed and easily identifiable "mark" within a list of words. the double space, while significant, is not easily noticed with the human eye. it functionally, by design of placement and shape marks the end of a thought. the mark of an end of a thought is the proper way to format a list of thoughts, rather than only marking beginnings of thoughts, as that would be confusing; reasoning why i think we should not remove the period and keep the capital letter.

my own personal observations have shown that i have adapted to reading this type of format. i'm no more confused reading the above than if i were to: Read something standard. this observation leaves me to conclude that it is unneeded information being transmitted, as meaning is not lost or in any way degraded with the absence. it is simple to say that before i was just used to seeing capital letters, and not seeing them took a while to get used to.

A new low for the forum...we're now defending the use of capital letters.
how dramatic, and hilariously incorrect. i'm fairly sure that i'm the one defending my idea of typing here. my memory, as well as the words on the screen here suggest that i was responding to the topic outlined in the thread when it was suggested i use the shift key. is my omission of shift use inherently threatening to the accepted use of shift? thank you for giving me so much credit there. but i do agree that having to defend it is pretty low.

it's up to you(general) to read what i type. you don't have to. getting upset and getting dramatic about it only reflects poorly on your choice of topic of discussion.

but, agian, my main point is that it doesn't really matter to me. it's more something i like to debate about, and it generally all stems form lazy and poor typing tecnique. i don't think more deeply about it than that. it's up to you(general) to decide to read what i say or not. besides, guys, seriously, i am using far worse grammatical abominations in my posts here than the omission of shift keys. this only, as a criticism shows me that the issue really isn't that important to you if i'm going to get questioned for not pushing shift, when my sentence structure is probably equivalent to that of an over caffeinated foreign exchange student.

so, anyone have any thoughts about what i had to say, not related to shift keys?

[burger]

how dramatic, and hilariously incorrect.

That comment wasn't about you...carry on though (rolls eyes)

[Vulture]

Huh? You originally said you can't feel sympathy for anyone who's problems are less than yours on some Grand Universal Scale of Suffering. I was originally curious about how my wealth and constant wracking pain match up against your hopefully good health and poverty, but now you see to be saying you can't feel sympathy for anecdotal stories of suffering. So what; you'd be moved by an article about how 27% of parents worth $25 million have had their kids kidnapped and held for ransom, but one of those parents talking you through the ordeal leaves you unmoved? If so, you have an unusual pattern of emotional reaction.
i think i remember saying something along the lines that it's hard for me to feel bad for someone's woes when they are perceived by me as in a better position. i thought that was a human thing. i do though, find it harder still to feel bad for someone who has woes that are similar to mine, and i find those woes in my personal view to be "minor." this thought, is in response mainly to the idea that people are "mean" to rich people... not so much the whole child kidnapping thing... that's pretty terrible. i would rate that as above minor.

if as you stated the article was about an alarming statistic of child kidnapping, or if the story was even about child kidnapping at all, i would be moved. the story is not about kidnapping though, and although kidnapping is terrible, that's not what the story is about. it's about how you would never guess that rich people have hard lives. my point is, hard compared to what? there is naturally a comparison there, and stated, it's the middle class.

if 23% of the rich's kids are being kidnapped, lets compare that to the middle class. they don't have a statistic in the kidnapping column to compare to, so we cannot use kidnapping as a direct comparison. as the story is about "hard life" let's pick a comparative traumatic event in the middle class that we can measure statistics on since the story is comparative... as you can see, this line of thiniking is spiraling twards idiotic.

the story's goal was to illicit sympathy based on anecdotal evidence of the idea that it's harder to be rich than middle class. i don't buy it as it's in my opinion impossible to make such a comparison meaningfully. so any requests for added sympathy for some type of person in particular seems dubious. if the story was about suicide rates, school dropout rates, drug abuse or divorces, then i would be more inclined to lend my sympathy for the situation of "rich."


I particularly don't get your complaint about the "assumption of ignorance." Doesn't the very act of communicating normally imply the audience is ignorant of what the speaker is about to impart? Would you prefer an article that said, "As you know, the rich also suffer problems. I'll tell you about these problems, which you already know all about. Reading this article is going to be a complete waste of your time because you will not learn anything"?
no, this was just really badly worded by me. i was trying to convey my feeling that the story had a patronizing nature to it.

[ShivaX]

my understanding is that capital letters at the beginning of sentences was developed as a reflection of the authority of the word of god.

*eyes glaze over*
*ingests cyanide*

[burger]

*eyes glaze over*
*ingests cyanide*

I'm still trying to figure out whose sockpuppet he is

[Ox]

i think i remember saying something along the lines that it's hard for me to feel bad for someone's woes when they are perceived by me as in a better position. i thought that was a human thing. i do though, find it harder still to feel bad for someone who has woes that are similar to mine, and i find those woes in my personal view to be "minor."
[...]
the story's goal was to illicit sympathy based on anecdotal evidence of the idea that it's harder to be rich than middle class. i don't buy it as it's in my opinion impossible to make such a comparison meaningfully.
I think you misinterpreted the article -- it was about how the rich have problems the middle class do not, without commentary as to whether those problems are "better" or "worse" than the problems that the middle class have. To the very limited extent that such comparisons make sense, I suppose you could argue that rich men's problems are easier than middle class men's problems because, given a choice, most people choose to be rich. You say that meaningful comparisons are "impossible", which I'd agree with, except you also say that it's "human" to dismiss the problems of people whom you believe (erroneously or not) to be better off than you.

Also, as a refresher, you said a lot more than merely that you found it difficult to feel bad for the rich.
as someone who's primary problems and sources of unhappiness has "always" been the absence of money, i'm finding it hard to be sympathetic to a rich person's situation. the thought of being sympathetic is actually upsetting me.
Incidentally, if all your life problems have been merely due to a lack of money, then (assuming you didn't literally watch your child starve to death in your arms) I'm probably entitled to take a macho "My suffering is greater than thine" position. I've been poor, and it can be unpleasant, but I'd trade all my material wealth in a heartbeat just to redo a single conversation that cost me seven years. And that conversation doesn't even qualify as a big problem to me!

But hey: you don't have to lead an epically tragic life to be sympathetic. Go take a look at the "Dating Advice Thread" -- you'll see a bunch of guys who live lives of luxury, taking full advantage of virtually unimaginable levels of racial, class, and sexual privilege in early 21st-century America. We're talking people whose biggest problems aren't even getting lucky, but getting lucky with the specific person they particularly want to get lucky with. This is the sort of "problem" that people only ever worry about if literally everything else in their lives is awesome. But it's still something that anyone can feel empathy for if he retains any amount of fellow-feeling for other men.

After this conversation, I've changed my opinion about the most affecting part of the article. Figuring out how to raise kids would be tough and a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but just look at how the article repeatedly points out the rich are unable even to complain about their problems, having internalized the critique that you can't complain unless John Steinbeck wrote a novel about you. The privilege to bitch -- now that I think about it, it's easily underestimated. Even soldiers dying in a ditch have the right to moan about their plight. To feel like you can't even feel bad for yourself because of your wealth, or if you do you can't freely express your pain -- maybe I'm a big whiner, but that sounds like a particularly subtle and effective form of psychological torture.

[VerseD]

You'd better think this through. If ease of complaint is tied to happiness, then the English are the gladdest race on earth, and the Japanese the most sorrowful.

[Thanasimos]

You'd better think this through. If ease of complaint is tied to happiness, then the English are the gladdest race on earth, and the Japanese the most sorrowful.

A simple comparison of their suicide numbers suggests this assessment is not wholly inaccurate. Japan is pretty high up there; the UK somewhat low.

[Widgetcraft]

The point is, the problems that affect us the most are fundamentally the same, but people assume rich people can buy their way out of them. And that they get treated as if they aren't allowed to feel that way.

It's sort of like how we shouldn't blame poor people for being poor, but some people like to say "well you should have planned better or stayed in school or made better choices". It's about having a little empathy for a situation completely different than your own.

Try not being able to afford to go to the dentist, and then tell me that rich people have the same problems. I'm not saying that rich people are immune to trouble, but holy shit, to say that they have all the same problems or problems that are remotely similar is bullshit.

[Chris_D]

Not being able to go to the dentist would put you in the poverty group IMO.

[Vulture]

I think you misinterpreted the article -- it was about how the rich have problems the middle class do not, without commentary as to whether those problems are "better" or "worse" than the problems that the middle class have.
but there IS commentary in the article, commentary about who has it "better."

"If anything, the rich stare into the abyss a bit more starkly than the rest of us. "


You say that meaningful comparisons are "impossible", which I'd agree with, except you also say that it's "human" to dismiss the problems of people whom you believe (erroneously or not) to be better off than you.
i never said the comparison was meaningful. it was meant as a personal point of reference, of my personal prejudices. it sort of makes me pissed the idea of being asked to consider the plight of the rich condition, and then being told that plight is mainly about social awkwardness.


Incidentally, if all your life problems have been merely due to a lack of money, then (assuming you didn't literally watch your child starve to death in your arms) I'm probably entitled to take a macho "My suffering is greater than thine" position. I've been poor, and it can be unpleasant, but I'd trade all my material wealth in a heartbeat just to redo a single conversation that cost me seven years. And that conversation doesn't even qualify as a big problem to me!
let's be clear though, is the decision you are talking about directly related to wealth? were you offered a million dollars for seven years of your life, and got your wish? or were you offered a million dollars for 7 yeas, but you didn't get the million? were you offered 30 million for 7 years, but only got 30k? were you offered 5million, at the cost of 7 years and true love and you will be stricken with cancer? were you offered a million dollars, but at the cost of 7 years of your research into the cure for cancer? you are going to have to be more descriptive here in order to submit it and for it to even qualify as anecdotal.



But hey: you don't have to lead an epically tragic life to be sympathetic. Go take a look at the "Dating Advice Thread" -- you'll see a bunch of guys who live lives of luxury, taking full advantage of virtually unimaginable levels of racial, class, and sexual privilege in early 21st-century America. We're talking people whose biggest problems aren't even getting lucky, but getting lucky with the specific person they particularly want to get lucky with. This is the sort of "problem" that people only ever worry about if literally everything else in their lives is awesome. But it's still something that anyone can feel empathy for if he retains any amount of fellow-feeling for other men. sure i can, and sometimes do feel compassion for humans. it can be difficult for me, and many people to, especially if i envy having such a problem to have. the article is't about compassion though, it's about how being rich is harder than being middle class. at least that's my interpretation of it.

just look at how the article repeatedly points out the rich are unable even to complain about their problems, having internalized the critique that you can't complain unless John Steinbeck wrote a novel about you. The privilege to bitch -- now that I think about it, it's easily underestimated.
the complaint that the rich can't complain?

[Widgetcraft]

Not being able to go to the dentist would put you in the poverty group IMO.

You'd be surprised at what the low-end of the middle class is like when your job either doesn't offer, or offers only unreasonably priced insurance.

[Chris_D]

All depends on your scale I suppose but if you can't afford some dental work then, yes, you are not well off.

[burger]

If dental work is the measure of poverty than england and japan are dirt poor

[Ox]

but there IS commentary in the article, commentary about who has it "better."

"If anything, the rich stare into the abyss a bit more starkly than the rest of us. "
The article concludes with a single statement that, unlike the rest of us, the super-rich can't tell themselves their existential dread is merely a consequence of not having enough money. So the super-rich don't have one of our comforting illusions. In this specific respect, yes the rich are worse off. Much like, in the respect of worrying your children will be kidnapped, the rich are worse off. Pointing out specific instances in which the rich have problems or lack solutions you don't have is not the same as asserting that overall the rich have it harder than you. I'm a little surprised you can't comprehend that.
i never said the comparison was meaningful. it was meant as a personal point of reference, of my personal prejudices. it sort of makes me pissed the idea of being asked to consider the plight of the rich condition, and then being told that plight is mainly about social awkwardness.
Okay, so you concede that your rejection of this article is because you're prejudiced. Which is understandable. But on the other hand, I generally think it's good to shed your prejudices when you identify them. You seem to be wallowing in your prejudice.
let's be clear though, is the decision you are talking about directly related to wealth? were you offered a million dollars for seven years of your life, and got your wish? or were you offered a million dollars for 7 yeas, but you didn't get the million? were you offered 30 million for 7 years, but only got 30k? were you offered 5million, at the cost of 7 years and true love and you will be stricken with cancer? were you offered a million dollars, but at the cost of 7 years of your research into the cure for cancer? you are going to have to be more descriptive here in order to submit it and for it to even qualify as anecdotal.
What? What decision? If you must know, you'd probably consider me wealthy. But in a mostly-unrelated series of events, I was disowned by my father and forbidden from seeing my brother and sisters, who were told I did not want a relationship with them. I was not given the option of trading my wealth for my family, but if I had been given that option, I would have done so. Is this specific enough for you to accept it into evidence, Your Honor? Why in God's green Earth you presume to declare which of my problems "qualify as anecdotal" or not -- or why that matters -- I do not know.

sure i can, and sometimes do feel compassion for humans. it can be difficult for me, and many people to, especially if i envy having such a problem to have.
In that case, the problem isn't with the article. It's that you're an envious person who allows that envy to cloud your view of others' humanity.

[Ink Asylum]

The article concludes with a single statement that, unlike the rest of us, the super-rich can't tell themselves their existential dread is merely a consequence of not having enough money. So the super-rich don't have one of our comforting illusions. In this specific respect, yes the rich are worse off.

This is a great point. It does you no harm to understand the problems of others, even if they aren't as bad as your problems or those of the poor. On the contrary, understanding what makes the rich miserable can bring insight into the causes of unhappiness that can help the non-rich improve their lives.

In addition, while we should of course continue to try to help the poor, if we also help the rich to find true happiness it will help us as well. As the article points out, as the rich discover that more wealth does not lead to greater happiness they turn to philanthropy. If more rich people learn this lesson that means more wealth being turned towards charity instead of hoarded in a futile attempt to stave off personal misery.

[Widgetcraft]

All depends on your scale I suppose but if you can't afford some dental work then, yes, you are not well off.

Such is the state of medical care in this country under the rule of evil motherfuckers with too much money.

[Chris_D]

Yup, I can't say I envy that particular aspect of living in the US.

[Vulture]

The article concludes with a single statement that, unlike the rest of us, the super-rich can't tell themselves their existential dread is merely a consequence of not having enough money. So the super-rich don't have one of our comforting illusions. In this specific respect, yes the rich are worse off. Much like, in the respect of worrying your children will be kidnapped, the rich are worse off. Pointing out specific instances in which the rich have problems or lack solutions you don't have is not the same as asserting that overall the rich have it harder than you. I'm a little surprised you can't comprehend that.
so then, the comparison is left at: NOT middle income vs high income, but middle income's perceived notion of high income, to high income's reality? in other words middle income's prejudicial view of high income, to the reality of high income? there's a comparison in the article somewhere... where is it? probably in the article's title.


Okay, so you concede that your rejection of this article is because you're prejudiced. Which is understandable. But on the other hand, I generally think it's good to shed your prejudices when you identify them. You seem to be wallowing in your prejudice.
i'm not wallowing. i brought it up as a frame of reference, then it became repeatedly questioned in an attempt to prove a double standard. i'm not sure that there exist a wallowing in my overall theory that the article draws a comparison, and that said comparison is impossible to make, and probably false. i regret now mentioning that i have a pre-disposed nature to not be empathetic to the rich condition.

apparently admitting such is invitation to complete discrediting... even in the face of an argument that is obviously not predicated upon it, so much so to give the invitation of the accusation of a double standard :P

What? What decision? If you must know, you'd probably consider me wealthy. But in a mostly-unrelated series of events, I was disowned by my father and forbidden from seeing my brother and sisters, who were told I did not want a relationship with them. I was not given the option of trading my wealth for my family, but if I had been given that option, I would have done so. Is this specific enough for you to accept it into evidence, Your Honor? Why in God's green Earth you presume to declare which of my problems "qualify as anecdotal" or not -- or why that matters -- I do not know.
your original statement didn't leave me anything to work with. it was extensively useless as anything other than to say "something happened to you that gave you money that you regret, but it's no big deal." i was not saying your problem didn't qualify, don't be so dramatic. i was saying that you didn't say anything at all there. what was your point there? that you think you suffered more than me? i think that was the point?

In that case, the problem isn't with the article. It's that you're an envious person who allows that envy to cloud your view of others' humanity.
mayb so. mayb my own problems are so painful to me that it blinds me to someone else's pain in what i might perceive as a less painful position. perhaps my situation is vastly difficult to deal with that seeing someone else in pain for some lesser reason makes me envious of such a problem. mayb all of this is true, except i'm pretty sure i have been making arguments pretty removed from these presumptions.

even if the above were true though, even if it is not (i seem to have no problem understanding the meaning of the complaints, or fitting them into context; ) what do you base this accusation on? my criticisms have been with the article, point of view and content. not about how much i hate them, how much i envy them, or how much i would give to have those problems.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Particularly because (at least on my machine) the site uses a sans-serif font with rather uniform glyph shapes and very short terminals. It's a pretty font, but it's not really designed to assist in parsing multiple lines of text.

At this point, capitalization isn't just a redundant artifact of handscribed tomes. Typographers (for the most part) design their capital letters to stick out from the rest of the pack ever so subtly, specifically to help you parse a separation in not only sentences, but quotations, questions, proper nouns and other forms of new ideas. Indeed, with electronic text being such that many full stops show up as 2x2pxl squares in a world of ever-shrinking pixel pitch, the need for capitalization is arguably more important. Either way, I'm not aware of any manuscript practice that involved embellishing every single capital letter on a page; to my knowledge, it was only ever the first letter of a chapter. That being said, there are several ways you can embellish any letter you decide to in today's modern forum environment, including Alternate Font, Differing Color, or modifying the Typeface Itself, all much faster than a poor scribe could doodle around a glyph. Of course, none of these techniques (including ancient doodling) aid in readability, which is probably why the monks didn't waste time on any but the very initial letters of large sections of text. of course, if you really cared about redundancy, you wouldn't put an extra line between paragraphs- it causes added keypresses that don't add any more meaning than a capital letter does, and besides, isn't it everyone else's fault if they don't visually parse where one major idea or statement ends and another begins? while we're at it, let's get rid of the query, since it should be obvious based on sentence structure whether the sentence is meant to be declaratory or interrogative. we don't want to give any unnecessary clues about how to read our sentences, do we. another good way to save keypresses would be to start eliminating spaces between sentences.since our friend the full stop is there anyway, people should be able to separate the statements out just fine.indeed,we can probably start skipping spaces after commas as well,andeliminatingspacesbetweenwordswherethere'sa lmostcertainlynoalternatewaysofgroupingtheletterst oformdifferentwordsisagoodideatoo.eveniftheoccasio naloverlapoccurs,itshouldbeuptothereadertofigureou twhatyoumean-whatyouhavetosayiscertainlyworththeextratimeittake sthemtoparsetheblockofascii,eventhoughit'sapparent lynotworthyourtimetoformatittolongexistingreadabil itystandards,becausehittingallofthoseextrabuttonsi sjusttoomuchdamnwork.
THIS POST
THIS FREAKING POST
I LOVE THIS POST SO MUCH

...i would marry this post

[VerseD]

Capitalization: the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse" and "i had to help my uncle jack off a horse."

[burger]

Capitalization: the difference between "I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse" and "i had to help my uncle jack off a horse."

I love you for this! :p

[BigJonno]

A friend of mine linked a great typography video the other day. It was Stephen Fry talking about grammar and punctuation. The tl;dr version is that he hates grammar Nazis, but good written communication is just good manners and it's fine to expect it in certain situations. It's a sentiment I can get behind; if you can't be bothered with the basic level of punctuation we teach to five-year-olds, why should anyone bother reading what you write?

EDIT:

J7E-aoXLZGY

[Bone]

Between Matthias and VerseD, I don't have the words. Thank you for existing.

[Vulture]

well, i guess that cinches it.

apparently capital letters in my post is a contingency for understanding. i'll be taking my content elsewhere again.

[J Arcane]

A friend of mine linked a great typography video the other day. It was Stephen Fry talking about grammar and punctuation. The tl;dr version is that he hates grammar Nazis, but good written communication is just good manners and it's fine to expect it in certain situations. It's a sentiment I can get behind; if you can't be bothered with the basic level of punctuation we teach to five-year-olds, why should anyone bother reading what you write?

EDIT:

J7E-aoXLZGY
I concur with this philosophy so hard it hurts.

Clarity of language isn't for one's own benefit, dammit, it's a courtesy and show of respect for others.

If you can't be arsed to put in the effort to write in a way that makes what you say clear to who you're speaking with, then it tells me you have no respect for them as people.

And if that's the case, you can just as well not bother.

[AntonThaGreat]

well, i guess that cinches it.

apparently capital letters in my post is a contingency for understanding. i'll be taking my content elsewhere again.

Your lengthy posts are very difficult to read for the lack of capitalization; it's fine for a sentence or two, but for a large body of text it's just a no-no. You might have had some interesting points in your post, but I didn't get to possibly enjoy them because your posts were simply unreadable for me. You want to make it as easy as possible for other people to understand you, especially when you are conveying delicate ideas.

[Ink Asylum]

I have come to the conclusion that different languages are unnecessarilly redundant. It's long past time we abandoned that outdated concept and moved to one simple, universal language. I have studied this issue thoroughly, and have numerous arguments to back me up.

As a result, from this point on, I will be posting strictly in Esperanto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto). If this makes my posts difficult to understand, well, that's your fault, not mine.

Dankon!

[TheFlyingOrc]

well, i guess that cinches it.

apparently capital letters in my post is a contingency for understanding. i'll be taking my content elsewhere again.

Yes, that is exactly what we are saying. Your insistent use of no capitals is rude, inconsiderate, and presumptuous beyond reason. In communication, it almost entirely the responsibility of the transmitter, not the receiver, to provide as much assistance to understanding as he can.

When people complain that you cannot be understood, they are not intolerant plebs, hunched in a dark corner of their shrine to ignorance, gnawing on funyuns and what appears to be a dog's femur, their eyes wide and unblinking as they watch a television program where nude women consume horse testicles and then make out with each other. Respect your damn reader.

The amount of effort it would take to learn to add capitalization - or, God forbid, go back afterward and add capitalization, is trivial. Your continued insistent that you don't need it, that we all just need to learn to tolerate your quirky style because we don't understand - what utter nonsense. It's like getting a blowjob and the giver getting mad because you don't seem to like that your glans is getting chewed, as if a furious Tasmanian Devil is attempting to learn the rabbinic art of circumcision. "No, you like it, you just don't KNOW that you like it", as blood begins to pool on the floor. "Non-teeth fellatio is so blase!"

We are interested in your opinion. We aren't interested in divining it from tea leaves. You have a serious lack of respect for everyone else in this thread, and it's annoying. Please note that literally nobody else on this site seems to have your problem. In fact, I and others often use no-caps typing as a parody of the ignorant. Your attitude is intolerable, your writing is insufferable, and your avatar is intoxicated. Grow up and post like a grown-ass man.

[TheFlyingOrc]

So then, the comparison is left at: NOT middle income vs high income, but middle income's perceived notion of high income, to high income's reality? In other words, middle income's prejudicial view of high income, to the reality of high income? There's a comparison in the article somewhere... where is it? Probably in the article's title.



I'm not wallowing. I brought it up as a frame of reference, then it became repeatedly questioned in an attempt to prove a double standard. I'm not sure that there exist a wallowing in my overall theory that the article draws a comparison, and that said comparison is impossible to make, and probably false. I regret now mentioning that i have a predisposed nature to not be empathetic to the rich condition.

Apparently admitting such is invitation to complete discrediting... even in the face of an argument that is obviously not predicated upon it, so much so to give the invitation of the accusation of a double standard :P


Your original statement didn't leave me anything to work with. It was extensively useless as anything other than to say "something happened to you that gave you money that you regret, but it's no big deal." I was not saying your problem didn't qualify, don't be so dramatic. I was saying that you didn't say anything at all there. What was your point there? That you think you suffered more than me? I think that was the point?


Maybe so. Maybe my own problems are so painful to me that it blinds me to someone else's pain in what I might perceive as a less painful position. perhaps my situation is vastly difficult to deal with that seeing someone else in pain for some lesser reason makes me envious of such a problem. Maybe all of this is true, except I'm pretty sure I have been making arguments pretty removed from these presumptions.

Even if the above were true though, even if it is not (I seem to have no problem understanding the meaning of the complaints, or fitting them into context; ) What do you base this accusation on? My criticisms have been with the article, point of view and content. Not about how much I hate them, how much I envy them, or how much I would give to have those problems.

About 90 seconds.

[TheKeck]

I just don't get much sound-sex out of Vulture's posts.

[Ox]

so then, the comparison is left at: NOT middle income vs high income, but middle income's perceived notion of high income, to high income's reality? in other words middle income's prejudicial view of high income, to the reality of high income? there's a comparison in the article somewhere... where is it? probably in the article's title.
If you think "Secret Fears of the Super Rich" is a comparison, then you don't know what the word "comparison" means.
i'm not wallowing. i brought it up as a frame of reference, then it became repeatedly questioned in an attempt to prove a double standard. i'm not sure that there exist a wallowing in my overall theory that the article draws a comparison, and that said comparison is impossible to make, and probably false.
You yourself keep saying your prejudice is based on your comparison between your situation and those of the rich. So clearly you think it's possible to draw a comparison.
your original statement didn't leave me anything to work with. it was extensively useless as anything other than to say "something happened to you that gave you money that you regret, but it's no big deal." i was not saying your problem didn't qualify, don't be so dramatic. i was saying that you didn't say anything at all there. what was your point there? that you think you suffered more than me? i think that was the point?
No. As I stated, the problems of poverty are significant but usually not, in my opinion, as serious as the more universal problems we all deal with: heartbreak, existential despair, loss, family issues, death. You asserted that all your problems have been due to poverty -- in which case, you have led an unusually blessed life devoid of the truly horrifying problems. I was carefully vague about my example because the precise details of my life are irrelevant: I was pointing out that I, like many other people, have had problems that I do not think wealth is adequate compensation for. You, on the other hand, said my problem did not "qualify as anecdotal" (whatever that means) and seem to think it's appropriate to demand details of my particular life situation and weigh them to decide whether, in your opinion, they qualified as a problem or not. This suggests you have bigger problems than poverty, whether you recognize that or not.
my criticisms have been with the article, point of view and content. not about how much i hate them, how much i envy them, or how much i would give to have those problems.
Your criticisms are based on your lack of reading comprehension. I am generously assuming you can't understand the article's point because you are blinded by prejudice, not because you have poor reading skills.

[RandoM51]

I'd rather be rich and unhappy than poor and unhappy, call me crazy.

[Chris_D]

Show me the person who doesn't agree with that :p.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I'd rather be rich and unhappy than poor and unhappy, call me crazy.

Honestly, if it's the same level of unhappiness, I can't think of a reason to pick one over the other.

I mean, if you get 25 life enjoyment units as a poor person, and 25 life enjoyment units as a rich person, isn't your quality of life the same for both? If that's going to be true of me, I'd rather have someone who is going to enjoy it be rich, rather than myself.

[burger]

Honestly, if it's the same level of unhappiness, I can't think of a reason to pick one over the other.

I mean, if you get 25 life enjoyment units as a poor person, and 25 life enjoyment units as a rich person, isn't your quality of life the same for both? If that's going to be true of me, I'd rather have someone who is going to enjoy it be rich, rather than myself.

Ummmm no.

Being wealthy allows you to provide for your children and their future...that might not bring you immediate happiness but it will make them happy. There are countless other examples of how having extra money is better than not having any.

What if being rich allows you to have health insurance. On a day to day basis you don't think about it so it doesn't contribute to your day to day happiness. Then one day you get diagnosed with a severe form of cancer. Bet you'll be glad you have money then. ;)

[J Arcane]

If you're rich and unhappy , at least you can afford coke.

[burger]

If you're rich and unhappy , at least you can afford coke.

That too ;)

[TheFlyingOrc]

Ummmm no.

Being wealthy allows you to provide for your children and their future...that might not bring you immediate happiness but it will make them happy. There are countless other examples of how having extra money is better than not having any.

What if being rich allows you to have health insurance. On a day to day basis you don't think about it so it doesn't contribute to your day to day happiness. Then one day you get diagnosed with a severe form of cancer. Bet you'll be glad you have money then. ;)

Both things that are raising your enjoyment of life. This isn't a hard concept to understand. If you are LITERALLY just as happy in the two situations, then one is not better than the other. You're arguing that the rich are happier/more content, which is one of my given premises here.

[Ink Asylum]

Being wealthy allows you to provide for your children and their future...that might not bring you immediate happiness but it will make them happy. There are countless other examples of how having extra money is better than not having any.

Being able to provide for your children should make you happy, so if you can do that while you're rich then if your happiness is equal to what it would have been were you to be poor then it would have to be offset by something pretty awful, like your wealth makes your kids spoiled, resentful douchebags.

In that case, would you rather have 25 life enjoyment units from knowing your bratty children will never want for anything, or 25 life enjoyment units from knowing that while you won't leave any inheritance for your children, they are well-rounded and hard-working individuals that will be able to provide for themselves?

[Bone]

What if it doesn't make you happy? The point of the article is that money may bring some peace of mind, but NOT happiness. And financial peace of mind, "having things easy", actually doesn't contribute to happiness as much as you might think. The whole thing about building character through adversity is absolutely true. Some of the finest people I've known have had very little money, but are very positive and happy (my grandparents are shining examples). And I've known rich people who don't have to try, don't have to build character, and so naturally they don't, but they aren't happy. Happiness must come from some other metric.

I've also known a lot of middle-income people who bitch about health care, yet still buy beer, go to movies, go shopping, buy video games and TVs. Priorities? If health care was that important they would buy it. Truly poor people get the medicare and other welfare. Many of you guys are perfect examples of the bias that exists towards people with money. The more you argue the more obvious it becomes, jealousy breeds resentment and an inability to empathize with those you perceive as having it easy.

[burger]

Both things that are raising your enjoyment of life. This isn't a hard concept to understand. If you are LITERALLY just as happy in the two situations, then one is not better than the other. You're arguing that the rich are happier/more content, which is one of my given premises here.

You missed the part where I said your day to day happiness doesn't take those things into account...you do realize it's possible for even rich people to be clinically depressed?

Then the day they need a large amount of money for an emergency they have it...that will certainly lift their spirits.

when all things are equal....

rich > poor

[Ink Asylum]

Would you rather spend your life depressed but with the knowledge that when you get cancer at 50 you'll be able to afford treatment? Or spend your life happy but knowing you'll die of cancer at 50?

[burger]

Would you rather spend your life depressed but with the knowledge that when you get cancer at 50 you'll be able to afford treatment? Or spend your life happy but knowing you'll die of cancer at 50?

The scenario we were talking about involved people who are equally happy or equally miserable.

Obviously I would prefer 50 years of happiness and then a sudden death over 50 years of depression followed by years of expensive medical procedures.

Back to my previous point even if a rich person is so unhappy as to forget about their wealth that wealth still exists and is a form of insurance. I would rather have that in the background regardless of whether I can currently appreciate it.

No one sits around thinking about their car insurance....until the day they get into a major accident. It's easy to forget the things you take for granted...therefore they don't factor into your day to day happiness.

I've also known a lot of middle-income people who bitch about health care, yet still buy beer, go to movies, go shopping, buy video games and TVs. Priorities? If health care was that important they would buy it..

Not to derail this thread but I know countless people who, despite owning an SUV, a 360 and a PS3, complain about not having health insurance. I guess gaming and having an expensive car are necessities. :p

[Bone]

If you don't have insurance (or have low coverage), you can hurt, maim and kill people in a car wreck and basically walk away. The rich guy is getting sued so hard that his kids will feel it. Your generalizations are easy to make, but flawed.

[burger]

If you don't have insurance (or have low coverage), you can hurt, maim and kill people in a car wreck and basically walk away. The rich guy is getting sued so hard that his kids will feel it. Your generalizations are easy to make, but flawed.

That doesn't even make sense...which makes you calling someone else's argument "flawed" all the more comical.

A rich person would have insurance to cover themselves...the poor person can still be sued and face legal prosecution....good luck getting a lawyer when you're poor.

If you honestly think Bill Gates would be wiped out by a simple car accident you need to go google the word "insurance".

If you're gonna call someones else's argument flawed you might want to have a clue first. :p

[Ink Asylum]

The scenario we were talking about involved people who are equally happy or equally miserable.
Obviously I would prefer 50 years of happiness and then a sudden death over 50 years of depression followed by years of expensive medical procedures.
Back to my previous point even if a rich person is so unhappy as to forget about their wealth that wealth still exists and is a form of insurance. I would rather have that in the background regardless of whether I can currently appreciate it.

Security does factor into happiness, though, on a daily basis. I doubt there are many rich people that "forget," even subconsciously, that their enormous wealth means they've got a safety net to deal with unexpected sickness, injury, job loss, etc.

So if someone with ample insurance is to be as equally happy as someone without insurance, then the person without insurance must have something to make them happy that the rich person does not.

[TheFlyingOrc]

The scenario we were talking about involved people who are equally happy or equally miserable.

Obviously I would prefer 50 years of happiness and then a sudden death over 50 years of depression followed by years of expensive medical procedures.

Back to my previous point even if a rich person is so unhappy as to forget about their wealth that wealth still exists and is a form of insurance. I would rather have that in the background regardless of whether I can currently appreciate it.

No one sits around thinking about their car insurance....until the day they get into a major accident. It's easy to forget the things you take for granted...therefore they don't factor into your day to day happiness.

Yes, but someone without that insurance is - surprise! Worried about not having it, impacting their Quality of Life (which I'm going to switch to using instead of happiness) negatively in a noticeable way. You keep trying to act like these random things are outside of the sphere of life enjoyment that really aren't, and now you're acting like rich people aren't aware that they're wealthy.

[Bone]

That doesn't even make sense...which makes you calling someone else's argument "flawed" all the more comical.

A rich person would have insurance to cover themselves...the poor person can still be sued and face legal prosecution....good luck getting a lawyer when you're poor.

If you honestly think Bill Gates would be wiped out by a simple car accident you need to go google the word "insurance".

If you're gonna call someones else's argument flawed you might want to have a clue first. :p
I was commenting on the many, many assumptions and generalizations you've made in this thread. In reality, poor people don't often get sued because there is nothing to gain from them. Rich people do. There's a reason you have "uninsured motorist" coverage on your car insurance, because you can't get blood from a turnip.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Security does factor into happiness, though, on a daily basis. I doubt there are many rich people that "forget," even subconsciously, that their enormous wealth means they've got a safety net to deal with unexpected sickness, injury, job loss, etc.

The article shows how many of them probably wish they could just give up their wealth, but none of them are willing to - most likely because they are aware of the safety net and are afraid of losing it.

[RandoM51]

Honestly, if it's the same level of unhappiness, I can't think of a reason to pick one over the other.

I mean, if you get 25 life enjoyment units as a poor person, and 25 life enjoyment units as a rich person, isn't your quality of life the same for both? If that's going to be true of me, I'd rather have someone who is going to enjoy it be rich, rather than myself.

You're not thinking then.

I'd rather be unhappy having a steak at Lugers than a burger at McDonalds.

I'd rather be unhappy drinking Chimay Red while eating gorgonzola off of english water crackers than be unhappy drinking piels light while eating slices of american off of stale bread.

I'd rather be unhappy playing World of Warcraft on a monster PC with eyefinity than unhappy playing pitfall on a 13 inch monochrome tv.

The list is pretty much endless, but hopefully some of these demonstrate why being unhappy in the lap of luxury might be just a bit more pleasant than being unhappy in abject poverty.

...and if you still don't get it, think about this: The rich person can afford proper healthcare for depression, the poor person just muddles through.

[Ink Asylum]

There is happiness that can be achieved with money and there is happiness which cannot. I would rather achieve the latter first because it makes achieving the former much easier.

The people who chase wealth believing it will make them happy without dealing with their other issues often end up like the people in the article.

People who can achieve the happiness that wealth doesn't provide then realize how little wealth they actually need to secure that last bit of happiness which comes from food/health/financial-security.

[VerseD]

There is happiness that can be achieved with money and there is happiness which cannot. I would rather achieve the latter first because it makes achieving the former much easier.

Or unnecessary. All this talk of insurance and burgers -- sorry brothers, but if your happiness is defined in terms of the hauteur of your menu, the gigahertz of your processor, and the deductible on your health insurance, you ain't living right. Not that you would be better off without, but if you are in love, or have real friendships, or enjoy your work, or have the opportunity to do good for others: who then thinks about how much they need an upgrade, or worries about affording an illness? Enough is as good as a feast, as they say, and excess should have no role in happiness -- unless you turn on the television and catch some terrifying ad about how discontented you will be unless you buy this now.

The article did not compare the wealthy to the penniless. It only expressed that the wealthy are unhappy for different reasons than the unwealthy, that they have just as much a right to be unhappy, because, after a certain standard of living is met, real happiness has nothing to do with your material comforts. What I took away from it, and from the story that TheFlyingOrc posted, is that you can never protect yourself from every potential danger, and you will kill yourself trying. Gratitude is a far better recipe for satisfaction in life than a raise in income of twenty percent.

[J Arcane]

Yeah, as someone who increasingly identifies as a gourmand, I dispute the notion that what is on my plate would not effect my happiness.

As a connoisseur of many things, I think it's a deeply depressing way to live to always settle for "enough", whether it's food, or music, or film, or art.

Though it does seem to be a depressingly common attitude in American society to do just that and then sneer at those who don't.

[Vigil80]

I'd rather be rich and unhappy than poor and unhappy, call me crazy.
Boom, bottom line.

I'm seeing a lot of what-ifs and qualifying, as well as a touch of ignorance-is-bliss style rationalizing that is naturally going to be lost on most of us. But whether you're poor and happy, or rich and unhappy, one is in spite of the other. And if you're rich and unhappy, there is some factor in your life divested from money that you need to address.

In other words, money may not ultimately buy happiness, but I'm highly skeptical of its unhappiness causing properties, as well. Properties that some stances seem to me to assume.

Yes, it's better to be rich in love and friendship, and all that greeting card shmutz. But it's even better still to be able to take your lover and your best friends on a cruise to Costa Verde.

[VerseD]

Yeah, as someone who increasingly identifies as a gourmand, I dispute the notion that what is on my plate would not effect my happiness.

As a connoisseur of many things, I think it's a deeply depressing way to live to always settle for "enough", whether it's food, or music, or film, or art.

Though it does seem to be a depressingly common attitude in American society to do just that and then sneer at those who don't.

Damn plebeian rabble! How dare they value friendship over French cuisine!

But if you ever come over for dinner, do not fear: I can cook very good meals on the cheap, I just can't go out very often. I have a fine taste for movies, I just don't buy them, or see them on Blueray unless it's at a friend's house. I go to museums on the free days, which is usually a Thursday. I get my books from a library -- I prefer the smell. Poetry is free, as it should be; and a real connoisseur can find without trouble a good $12 bottle of wine. To put it broadly, wealth and elegance are independent, and it is possible to enjoy "enough" of the fine things in life, on much less than seventy thousand dollars per year, if you sacrifice some of the flashy ornament. There's where I see excess.

In fact, I am not so much distressed by the common man who sneers at culture -- I admire that rough and simple virtue, that Platon Karataev who knows only that he knows nothing, that Alexander who judges a painting by whether his horse can recognize it as a man -- as I am by those who mistake the gilt trappings of culture for the real thing.

[KamaItachi]

If I was rich and unhappy I could afford a flamethrower and make other people in the world just as unhappy as me.

[J Arcane]

In fact, I am not so much distressed by the common man who sneers at culture -- I admire that rough and simple virtue, that Platon Karataev who knows only that he knows nothing, that Alexander who judges a painting by whether his horse can recognize it as a man -- as I am by those who mistake the gilt trappings of culture for the real thing.

And you do me every bit the discourtesy you so cheekily imply I've committed by assuming it is the "gilt" that I am after.

It is the greatness. And some greatness comes at a price.

Torchon de foie gras does not taste amazing because it is expensive, it is expensive because it tastes amazing and requires great care and time in it's raising to produce. A banh mi from a street cart in Hanoi is also amazing, yet it it costs pennies, and is no lesser the experience for it.

Yet it is only the rich man who can afford the former, and thus for this opportunity, and many like it, the sensualist, the gourmand, will always be happier with a pocket stuffed with enough riches to indulge the fullest spectrum of delights, not merely some subset of it.

Were I a wealthier man, there are a great many things that would be on my plate far more often, and I would be ecstatic at my blessings for having such bounty before it, and in my life I try always to have the best I can within, or even without, my means, for what is life but a series of pleasures?

Put less airily, I love food. All food, from a lowly but expertly made snippet of street food, to pate en croute that took hours for a chef to prepare and will set me back on the check more than I care to imagine. The richer I am, the more of it, and the more variety of it, and the greater quality of it, I have the ability to enjoy.

Thus, as a lover of food, the more money I am, the happier I am.

[Ink Asylum]

Yeah, as someone who increasingly identifies as a gourmand, I dispute the notion that what is on my plate would not effect my happiness.

As a connoisseur of many things, I think it's a deeply depressing way to live to always settle for "enough", whether it's food, or music, or film, or art.

Though it does seem to be a depressingly common attitude in American society to do just that and then sneer at those who don't.

You have control over what you allow to affect your happiness. If you allow your happiness to be decided by the quality of your steak, music, film, etc, then it will be so.

I do not sneer at that decision, I just personally believe it is more likely to lead to temporary, fleeting happiness. I believe true happiness comes from detachment from desire. In that way, you can still enjoy a fine meal, but not having one doesn't make you unhappy.

[Vigil80]

I can relate to J on this topic. Doing one's best within one's limitations is laudable, of course. But that doesn't mean that one should not look to overcome those limitations.

[J Arcane]

You have control over what you allow to affect your happiness. If you allow your happiness to be decided by the quality of your steak, music, film, etc, then it will be so.

I do not sneer at that decision, I just personally believe it is more likely to lead to temporary, fleeting happiness. I believe true happiness comes from detachment from desire. In that way, you can still enjoy a fine meal, but not having one doesn't make you unhappy.
I am not unfamiliar with the concepts of ascetism, but I reject them, for being no damn fun at all.

Further, I can just as well counter that I find it personally sad to have one's happiness so bound up in the presence of other people.

I can enjoy my food alone, and indeed have on many an occasion.

[Ink Asylum]

Should I feel obligated to overcome financial limitations if I can find happiness within them, though?

[J Arcane]

I can relate to J on this topic. Doing one's best within one's limitations is laudable, of course. But that doesn't mean that one should not look to overcome those limitations.
Indeed. Some of the finest cuisines in the world started as ways to make more delicious the nasty bits and cheap cuts and unwanted things that one had laying around, and I admire that skill immensely, and would like to think I possess some small knack at it myself.

Doesn't mean I can't also enjoy a lobster poached in duck fat and served with shaved truffle on a bed of saffron risotto.

[Vigil80]

Should I feel obligated to overcome financial limitations if I can find happiness within them, though?
In general, no. But neither should someone feel compelled to settle for less.

Looks like yet another discussion has been boiled down to "to each his own."

[J Arcane]

Should I feel obligated to overcome financial limitations if I can find happiness within them, though?
If you are happy, you are happy, none can tell you otherwise, though I am suspicious of any argument that suggests that what one already knows is all one might ever find happiness in.

I have never tried or experienced a great many things in this world, and to me, that is a fault. I will never know, even to my last breath, if perhaps on the horizon, beyond my sight, there was some experience that may have trumped all I ever witnessed.

And I reject out of hand any argument that suggests that my pursuit of experience, and of the means to expand the possibilities of experience, is somehow to be meaningless or even immoral.

I do not praise ignorance, regardless it's motive.

[Vigil80]

I declare that a damn fine post. Quoteworthy.

[Ink Asylum]

I am not unfamiliar with the concepts of ascetism, but I reject them, for being no damn fun at all.

Who said you had to go full ascetic? You can still enjoy a fine meal without tying your happiness and unhappiness to whether or not you can afford that meal.

Further, I can just as well counter that I find it personally sad to have one's happiness so bound up in the presence of other people.

I can enjoy my food alone, and indeed have on many an occasion.

Agreed. You can also enjoy the company of people without tying your happiness and unhappiness to whether or not you're around people.

[VerseD]

Yet it is only the rich man who can afford the former, and thus for this opportunity, and many like it, the sensualist, the gourmand, will always be happier with a pocket stuffed with enough riches to indulge the fullest spectrum of delights, not merely some subset of it.

I didn't realize you were a sensualist. Carry on then! I'll follow Diogenes the Cynic and Marcus Aurelius to the unsatisfying but virtuous grave.

Further, I can just as well counter that I find it personally sad to have one's happiness so bound up in the presence of other people.

I can enjoy my food alone, and indeed have on many an occasion.

Have you ever read A Christmas Carol?

I have never tried or experienced a great many things in this world, and to me, that is a fault. I will never know, even to my last breath, if perhaps on the horizon, beyond my sight, there was some experience that may have trumped all I ever witnessed.

And I reject out of hand any argument that suggests that my pursuit of experience, and of the means to expand the possibilities of experience, is somehow to be meaningless or even immoral.

I do not praise ignorance, regardless it's motive.

I have to ask what money has to do with all of this. You can travel through India, meet amazing people, learn about wildly foreign cultures, eat incredible regional delicacies, and it will cost you about $10 per day. You can learn about the world without going to college, if you are self-motivated. Pretending that money should limit what you can experience or learn is in itself a limitation.

Part of it is enjoying what you have instead of striving for more, so you simply have more time to enjoy. The other part is seeing what is within your reach. It might surprise you that you do not need to be very rich to have a rich and varied life.

[J Arcane]

Are you denying that there are experiences one cannot have without X amount of money?

Dinner at the French Laundry?

A go at the track in a Ferrari FXX?

A ride on a Russian rocket into Earth orbit?

Not all experience is democratized. Acknowledging that is not near-sighted, it's practical.

[Ink Asylum]

If you are happy, you are happy, none can tell you otherwise, though I am suspicious of any argument that suggests that what one already knows is all one might ever find happiness in.

I have never tried or experienced a great many things in this world, and to me, that is a fault. I will never know, even to my last breath, if perhaps on the horizon, beyond my sight, there was some experience that may have trumped all I ever witnessed.

And I reject out of hand any argument that suggests that my pursuit of experience, and of the means to expand the possibilities of experience, is somehow to be meaningless or even immoral.

I do not praise ignorance, regardless it's motive.

I admire and respect your drive to experience. I share it. I enjoy good food, good music, good games, good movies, good anything. If someone offered me a finely prepared lobster right now I would take it gladly, enjoy it thoroughly, and value the experience.

However, if I allowed my happiness to rely on whether or not I was served that lobster then I would be doing myself a disservice. After all, the entirety of experience so dwarfs my capacity to partake of it that using such a standard would mean that no matter what I would have to be unhappy. If I desire to see, taste, hear, smell, and touch all there is how could I ever be satisfied with the tiny fraction my short life allows me to reach?

[Vigil80]

And what if the very idea itself of enjoying what you have (read: settling for less) makes you unhappy? Positively paradoxical.

[VerseD]

Are you denying that there are experiences one cannot have without X amount of money?

You only live for 80 years, 100 at most. You can't experience everything, and I think you'll experience more if you don't spend the longer end of that lifeline saving up money for the finer things. It's a quantity rather than quality approach.

[Ink Asylum]

Are you denying that there are experiences one cannot have without X amount of money?

Dinner at the French Laundry?

A go at the track in a Ferrari FXX?

A ride on a Russian rocket into Earth orbit?

Not all experience is democratized. Acknowledging that is not near-sighted, it's practical.

Is it those incredibly specific experiences you're after? Is their cost, and what you have to do to pay that price, accurately reflective of the happiness they will give you compared to other, cheaper pleasures?

[Ink Asylum]

And what if the very idea itself of enjoying what you have (read: settling for less) makes you unhappy? Positively paradoxical.

I believe that people have the capacity to set the prerequisites for their own happiness. If you truly work towards being satisfied with what you have then you will be.

[J Arcane]

Is it those incredibly specific experiences you're after? Is their cost, and what you have to do to pay that price, accurately reflective of the happiness they will give you compared to other, cheaper pleasures?
And how am I to judge such things?

How am I to answer those questions if I have not experienced them for myself to make the judgement?

[Vigil80]

But that time spent working toward being happy with what I have could be spent working toward having what I want. ;)

At any rate, we're deep in the territory of core values, philosophy, and perception now, which is usually where I check out. The pontifications about life, love, and the folly (in some opinions) of striving for better circumstances is beginning to make me decidedly unhappy.

Here's to everyone finding happiness.

[Ox]

Here's to everyone finding happiness.
Meh. Happiness is overrated. Here's to everyone finding virtue, even if it means being miserable.

[Ink Asylum]

And how am I to judge such things?

How am I to answer those questions if I have not experienced them for myself to make the judgement?

How do you pick which experiences you partake of and strive towards normally?

[TheFlyingOrc]

The most valuable thing I possess is the love of my wife, which, beautifully, costs no dollars. I love fine food as well, but I honestly fully believe that the best things in life are free, and believing otherwise is the perfect recipe for unhappiness.

[TheKeck]

Meh. Happiness is overrated. Here's to everyone finding virtue, even if it means being miserable.
Some believe that virtue will bring you happiness and that wickedness never was happiness. ;)

[TheKeck]

Also, I've just been catching up on this thread. It seems that many people who are arguing the whole "All things being equal, I'd rather be rich than poor," are rejecting the premise of Ink's argument, more than rebutting its conclusion. The whole premise is that the rich person and the poor person are equally happy. You give a bunch of examples of how the rich person has it better off, which does not demonstrate equal levels of happiness.

[Superman's Dead]

Meh. Happiness is overrated. Here's to everyone finding virtue, even if it means being miserable.

That's the kind of toast that will get you thrown out of a bar, right there.

[MagGnome]

Thanks again for this article, it's really good.

A comment underneath it caught my eye:



A very personal story from a very rich man.

Wow, thank you for sharing that. It really puts a lot of things into perspective.

[RandoM51]

Every time I hear somebody say "money can't buy you happiness" what I hear is "sour grapes". Money definitely does buy happiness for a great many people. Not to say that it will for everybody, but it definitely can. Money gives you more choices in most societies and "having more choices" is my basic definition of freedom. The more choices I have, the happier I am.

[jeffbax]

It's petty if people can't sympathize with a person's problems if that person is rich. It reflects a sorry amount of entitlement and jealousy, especially in light of the prosperity and quality of life boom we've seen in much of the world over the past 50 years.

[TheKeck]

Every time I hear somebody say "money can't buy you happiness" what I hear is "sour grapes". Money definitely does buy happiness for a great many people. Not to say that it will for everybody, but it definitely can. Money gives you more choices in most societies and "having more choices" is my basic definition of freedom. The more choices I have, the happier I am.
Perhaps, but Money Can't Buy Me Love.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Every time I hear somebody say "money can't buy you happiness" what I hear is "sour grapes". Money definitely does buy happiness for a great many people. Not to say that it will for everybody, but it definitely can. Money gives you more choices in most societies and "having more choices" is my basic definition of freedom. The more choices I have, the happier I am.

Except that the world doesn't work that way. for a microcosm of the experience, try playing Minecraft where you can never lose anything and you just spawn in whatever blocks you want at that moment in time. Without work, less enjoyable.

Obviously real life is less complicated, but the struggle makes life better.

[CES]

Perhaps, but Money Can't Buy Me Love.

Depends on the city, really.

[Ink Asylum]

As has been discussed again and again in this thread, money can buy you a certain amount of happiness, but after that point it does little to nothing to help you achieve the intangible things that would further increase your happiness, and in many cases can make it harder.

[Krispy]

What I took from this was that class distinctions work both ways.

[LordDon]

As has been discussed again and again in this thread, money can buy you a certain amount of happiness, but after that point it does little to nothing to help you achieve the intangible things that would further increase your happiness, and in many cases can make it harder.

At that point accumulating any more money just takes happiness away from other people.

[VerseD]

I just heard of the Giving Pledge (http://givingpledge.org/#enter), instigated by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and thought of this conversation. Sixty billionaires, including Bloomberg, Hilton, Icahn, and Paul Allen, are committed to giving away at least half of their fortunes -- in Buffet's case, a full ninety-nine percent.

The criticism goes that this is just a redemptive stunt, at the end of greedy, predatory lives; but it is better than nothing, and it is better than Donald Trump. Apparently these sixty represent a new order of billionaires, for whom philanthropy is an imperative. Now if they would only pay their taxes . . .

[Ox]

The criticism goes that this is just a redemptive stunt, at the end of greedy, predatory lives
I would have loved to see those critics at Calvary.

[Krispy]

A piece of me was really hoping to find Zuckerberg's name on that list. And I did. :)

[Deadend]

Except that the world doesn't work that way. for a microcosm of the experience, try playing Minecraft where you can never lose anything and you just spawn in whatever blocks you want at that moment in time. Without work, less enjoyable.

Obviously real life is less complicated, but the struggle makes life better.

I don't know man, being able to spawn blocks whenever I want is a bit more enjoyable than a version of minecraft where creepers are constantly attacking, making it impossible to create anything that lasts and the best tools available are wood.. and trees don't grow.

[burger]

A piece of me was really hoping to find Zuckerberg's name on that list. And I did. :)

Zuckerberg is notoriously generous and has little interest in personal wealth

[LongStepMantis]

I just heard of the Giving Pledge (http://givingpledge.org/#enter), instigated by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and thought of this conversation. Sixty billionaires, including Bloomberg, Hilton, Icahn, and Paul Allen, are committed to giving away at least half of their fortunes -- in Buffet's case, a full ninety-nine percent.

The criticism goes that this is just a redemptive stunt, at the end of greedy, predatory lives; but it is better than nothing, and it is better than Donald Trump. Apparently these sixty represent a new order of billionaires, for whom philanthropy is an imperative. Now if they would only pay their taxes . . .

I'm not going to lie. The only one that truly shocked me was George Lucas. It somehow puts me at ease to know that his "Star Wars whoring" money is going to good use. Especially since his letter focuses on the need to rebuild and revamp the education system, and I wholeheartedly agree.

[muddi900]

As a rich person, I can say it on good authority that all rich people secretly fear that the peasants would gain sentience. The tried and true solution is to never to not allow the peasantry to think. I mean look at this thread.

Now, these feet aint gonna wash themselves...

[Narradisall]

As a rich person, I can say it on good authority that all rich people secretly fear that the peasants would gain sentience. The tried and true solution is to never to not allow the peasantry to think. I mean look at this thread.

Now, these feet aint gonna wash themselves...

Don't worry old chap.

Just throw out a couple of articles like this a year and we'll have them believing poverty is the better option and they're much better off without piles of money.

Must dash, the Berlin exchange closes soon and I need to check my stock options!

[J Arcane]

Don't worry old chap.

Just throw out a couple of articles like this a year and we'll have them believing poverty is the better option and they're much better off without piles of money.

Must dash, the Berlin exchange closes soon and I need to check my stock options!
Bang on, old chap. Got to keep the peasants in line, and the old Brit ways never quite worked right. But this American reliance in invented ideological fantasies seems to work great!

You know they actually have gotten their people to believe there's no such thing as class over there? Brilliant!

[muddi900]

Don't worry old chap.

Just throw out a couple of articles like this a year and we'll have them believing poverty is the better option and they're much better off without piles of money.

Must dash, the Berlin exchange closes soon and I need to check my stock options!

Pfft! options!

I bet they don't even invite you to the secret 'palm rubbing while cackling maniacally' meetings!