if ( Money == Happiness || Money != Happiness ) { terminate( this ); } Thursday, Feb 16 2006
Ponders 11:29 am
Living through yet another Valentine’s day got me thinking about ’what is happiness’. Given North America’s fixation with materialism, is money the key to happiness?
I read that a woman in England won $2M in a lottery. She put the money in a bank account, did not touch the money (except for some normal day to day expenses) nor did she tell her husband and 2 kids. Reason? She didn’t want to impact what she thought was a perfect middle-class life and a solid family chemistry. Apparently her husband was once a drug addict and with this windfall she feared he would quit his job and want to live a more decadent lifestyle. The kids, well they would become spoiled brats no doubt. YadaYadaYada.
What do you think about that? Do you feel that the kids and father are unjustly being denied a rare opportunity to dramatically better their lives? Or do you feel for the mother and applaud her heroic attempt to shelter her family from potential downfall? Hmmm, I’m betting you’re feeling anger towards mum.
The truth of the matter is, money is the cornerstone of our society today. Our needs from basic to indulgence all require cold hard cash. Gone are the days of trade of goods for services. Therefore, unless you find happiness in begging for handouts or joining that oh-so-popular monastery or cult-city, you ain’t gonna be happy without money. Good luck finding that house in the wilds and living off nature – as if you’d be happy there anyway.
The proof is in the pudding – studies show rich countries have happier people than ‘middle-class’ countries. In turn, middle-class countries have happier people than poor countries. If you don’t believe me, simply try walking 10 miles to find crappy water, come home, find your child on her death-bed and sigh helplessly because there’s no medical assistance within 30 miles. Or, go to work, whine about how monotonous or ‘hard’ your job is clacking away at the keyboard, come home, throw a steak on the BBQ, share dinner with your wife and 2 1/2 kids and settle in for a night of American Idol on the new HD 42″ plasma. Or, wake up at noon, drag your arse to the jacuzzi, go for a swim, take the HumVee down to Rodeo Drive and blow some coin on some bling and a bottle of Dom – slip over to the summer home and get trashed on your pool table while watching your HD 1000″ plasma. How would you rank these scenarios on the happy scale?
You may say that “Love, health, family and friends are way more important to happiness”. This I can concur with. But, isn’t it so much easier to acquire all of the above when you have money? Tough to have any of those when you’re a bum on the streets my friend.
So, the next time you hear about that millionaire that is sad or unhappy, it’s likely been made up to make the poorer people feel better for themselves and to validate their illusions that they don’t necessarily need more money to be happier.
I’ll end this with two little gems I found ironic:
1) A Nova Scotian won $500K in 1984 – drank it ALL away with his pals in 11 weeks!
2) A Canadian won $10M in 1998, lost it all to partying – hung himself in 2005
How much money do you need to be happy? That of course is the key. Have fun trying to figure it out. Why else are you nesting away your coin into RRSPs and other instruments that you are praying have a solid ROI when you retire? Just remember, like the guy who won the $10M - whether you have money or whether you don’t, everybody ends up facing the reaper.
Edit: BTW, I personally would like to think I fall in the middle. I enjoy the steak on the BBQ with my wife and 2 1/2 kids, but would love to have the wealth to at least say I could do the bling thing if I wanted to.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I think your example reveals a lot about you.
I agree there is a hard lower threshold for money-to-happiness; i.e. that you need to have the resources available to you to deal with all the survival issues (food, shelter, health, etc), and that to some extent additional resources helps with the leisure time problem, but I’m not sure that there is much of a direct relationship beyond that minimal barrier.
I’m certainly not sure that Hummer blingman is any happier than CompuDrone, just because his TV is bigger. I think once you get to the minimum, other non-material considerations become more important in determining happiness.
But then, what do I know? Apparently I don’t even conform to society’s fashion norms.
February 16th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
Point taken. I guess this minimum is going to be different for everyone. If the thing that make one happy are strolls in the park you won’t need as much money to be as happy as, say, a person who needs to play Pebble Beach every day. Hmm, so in relation to the example, blingmeister needs more money to be as happy as desk-boy since one is only happy with the bigger HD TV. There must be some sort of formula to determine how much money a particular person needs to be happy.
February 20th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Bottom line – money would mean nothing if I didn’t have my family and friends. There is no way around that. I could have millions, but without my family, extended family and friend, I would be sad and lonely. With my family, I can make do with whatever money I have. This is not to say that I would be happy living in povery; far from it. I work with poverty and I see what it does to families. Some rise above it for sure, but it is good to have a decent wage to be able to live comfortably. Which, based on Mike’s observations, begs the question “what is comfortable”… I would say we are more than comfortable. Currently, being on maternity leave, we have learned that we can happily survive on a lower combined income. We certainly aren’t giving up a whole lot either. The material things mean nothing without family and friends. I think of the things I like to do most and many of them revolve around being in our yard with family and friends, playing ball..with family and friends, whatever…with family and friends. Nothing material can replace the joy that people bring. Ponder on that for a while. Anything I have ever purchased, I eventually get bored with. On the other side of it, I am close to my family, extended family and have several friends since childhood. I expect that I will have a long marriage as well… noone has ever referred to mike as boring!
February 21st, 2006 at 10:29 am
Sonia hit it on the head. I see the equation being more like money is generally inverse to happiness. I am not suggesting that being poor is going to make you happy but at some point the amount of money you make is going to affect how much time you can spend with your family and enjoy life outside of work. The North American pursuit with material goods has more and more households with both parents working. This is not a bad thing in itself. I think it is important that we all get mental stimulation by working but at a point, the workload one takes on to earn more money to have more toys has to affect the amount of time one can spend enjoying time with family and even those toys one worked so hard for.
Having Susan off now looking after Spencer has made me even more aware of how valuable family time is. Spencer also likes to remind me of this constantly “All done work daddy?”.
February 26th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Towards the original Roachism, I have never seen proof that richer countries are happier. I suspect that it is likely true, but most rich countries are also livable. The extension to the argument, with crappy water and no access to medical attention, is a mixed argument.
Try living with poor resources while being paid an absurd amount of money. Would you stay? If access was truly restricted, eventually I would leave. And take my family with me.
How much would you need to be paid to move your family to oil-rich war-torn Irac? Especially before the war, when there was a trade-ban between Irac and most countries, money would be relatively worthless.
I don’t like where this society is heading. Wars and violence, allowing starvation, expensive medicines, politics before humanity. None of it would be how I would run my family. One child who has all the resources, while the others suffer. Or even worse, one parent with everything.
I have yet to find my own equalibrium. I live in this society, so it is hard to ignore; I am no better than anyone else. So my suspicion is that I am not completely grounded in my relationships like Sonia and Sean talk about. And more than just a child or a wife, but my neighbours and my friends too.
And to be honest, I suspect that forging those relationships, so strong that you could sacrifice affluence for love, is probably a lot of work.
But who ever said that happiness would come easy?
February 28th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Changed my mind.
I can do that right?
Anything a person wants, puts them on a path. When something else comes up, the path changes.
For instance, if I had 2 children and one needed an expensive operation, I would sacrifice time with the healthy one to work for the money to save the dying one. (so says the man with no children)
The reality (du jour) is that I should feel lucky that I have the opportunity to wonder about excess cash…lucky, blessed, fortunate.
I can also consider myself self-centered, ignorant, scared if I choose to horde beyond my needs.