What's the big deal about being rich?

[Knife]

• Instead of driving a Mercedes, you drive a Toyota.
• Instead of living in a 4 bedroom house in the burbs, you live in a ghetto neighborhood near downtown.
• Instead of eating fancy dinners, you eat more fast-food.
• Instead of playing golf, you play basketball.
• Instead of hitting the bars, you stay home and drink your beer.
• Instead of traveling the world, you travel the streets.

I don't get it. I'd probably still be just as happy whether I was making 10000 a year or 1000000 a year. Why is being rich such a big deal?

[Randa]

Because you can do anything and buy everything. Never have to worry about bills. No concern with your children's education or healh. And once you do everything for yourself and your family there is still philanthropy. I would love to be rich if just because of the possibilities it offers.

[BlueFire]

I would want to be rich to not have to work. But your list is examples of luxuries. Driving a nice car is more reliable. A house in a safe neighborhood that isn't falling apart as much is less stressful. Fine dining can be an enjoyable passtime, whereas fast food is known to be quite unhealthy. There are many sights to see and places around the world to experience the fascination and wonder of being in.

How satisfied one is of their life differs from person to person. There are a ton of different factors that each have their own weight on how happy you are. There are many people who do not need any of these luxuries to be content, but each of the millions of factors that exist in and around you add up to create your life.

[Knight]

Because people with empty wallets are insignificant to any government reliant on tax payers and "economy." The most value a poor person is in the overall turning of the world is to be a statistic or appear in a commercial funded by a religious charity group. At least to "important people."

Edited April 19, 2013 by Knight

[Rehab]

My dad's point of view is that it basically depends on who you want/have to support, like if it'll just be yourself as you age, or a full family.

Not that it's "easy" to support just yourself (and money will indeed be needed if misfortune strikes hard enough that your regular lifestyle might be interrupted),

but a kid has a never-ending list of needs and would-really-benefit-froms, even aside from being another person whose survival needs to be ensured (though they're not cheap in that department either, to be sure). A good school district becomes something to worry about in regards to where you live, not even directly counting what that's going to cost you directly over decades, money will be needed to allow them to pursue their interests, and there's all kinds of preparatory/enrichment things available to be paid for to get them ready for life and bluh the list goes on is the point

In any case, art, general entertainment and supporting causes/endeavors you care about (if any) are going to be harder to access with income that's literally "I can afford to stay alive and not much else"

Admittedly, something I heard attributed to Jim Carrey was that being rich isn't going to automatically cure depression or anything, even if achieved by someone coming from poverty (at least not in all cases). And there is indeed kind of a documented "there is no such thing as enough/I'm not really rich, though" mentality, where even some millionaires don't consider themselves "rich," because ithey'll fixate on what "the next step [of affluence] up" has, and on how they don't have that yet, and they'll say "having [insert thing] is what really means you're rich."

It's still something that can be relevant to our capacity to accomplish whatever is important to us, though, so long as we keep it in perspective, and realize there are a ton of rewarding things out there that don't actually require much investment.

Also, some of that stuff is kinda bad for you and could lead to a shorter, lower-quality life, and isn't even necessarily stuff to which everybody who isn't rich must be subjected. Fast food on the regular? Heart disease and malnutrition, man, gotta be careful with chain restaurants. Sedentary habbits like just staying home, drinking and couch-surfing? Even if one can't afford the gym, one doesn't even need to get into like body building tier stuff, just some calisthenics and walking/running a bit a day does relative wonders for you and helps prevent/lessen shit like mental and physical atrophy. Lots of kinds of sports are cool for our health, though, to be sure.

[Tango]

If you're poor, it's extremely hard to get out of poverty.

For example: You cannot afford a washing machine and dryer, so you go to the laundromat This costs a lot more than it would if you owned your own equipment. You have to pay for gas to get there, spend time going there, and pay to use their facilities. A good $40 pair of shoes will last a couple of years, while you will have to replace inexpensive $20 pairs of shoes every couple of months. Because you cannot afford to buy more durable things up front, you end up having to spend a lot more money in the long run; it's extremely hard to get out of this cycle.

Since happiness is individually-based perception, wealth could or could not affect someone's happiness. If you're born and raised without a lot of money, and stay that way your entire life, you may be content or you may be jealous/resentful of wealthier people. Same thing could happen if you've been a billionaire your entire life. Dramatic shifts, either from rich to poor or poor to rich, could be devastating for anyone, simply because of how vastly different those lifestyles are.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Asher

[Original Alear]

It's also about the story behind the income. Enough said?

Well,

Somehow, when I spent time earning money on a job, it was a bit easier to understand myself as trying to do well at what I was doing. There was the ability to subordinate my aimlessness regarding "higher" purposes to the likelihood - more or less a matter of faith - that my employers, and to some extent the people who had run the organizations before I got there, could make better determinations on branching options/possibilities than I could (they were more objective). IRL, I don't enjoy judgment calls very much, maybe because I am fairly effective at translating a judgment of a particular case into a judgment of people in general.

When I think about things I spend money on, however, that's totally out the window - I don't have the attention span, the purpose, the knowledge or the constancy to spend for the future effectively. And when I was at college, because the spending was to allow my education and improvement, it was even harder to see the purpose because I couldn't see any way to apply my education to anything that was going on in my life, except in a frivolous manner.

And as a paranoid person, the former is not comforting because I end up contemplating the possibilty that the work itself was manufactured to make me happy, rather than to give assistance to the callers I was hoping to provide some assistance to, or the employers who were paying me - and yet, the work is important, and I'm failing to deal with that work.

[Knife]

Yeah, but don't you think money has a greater value when you're poorer?

[47948201]

Yeah, but don't you think money has a greater value when you're poorer?

Isn't this exactly the big deal about being rich?

[Agro]

It's also about the story behind the income. Enough said?

Well,

Somehow, when I spent time earning money on a job, it was a bit easier to understand myself as trying to do well at what I was doing. There was the ability to subordinate my aimlessness regarding "higher" purposes to the likelihood - more or less a matter of faith - that my employers, and to some extent the people who had run the organizations before I got there, could make better determinations on branching options/possibilities than I could (they were more objective). IRL, I don't enjoy judgment calls very much, maybe because I am fairly effective at translating a judgment of a particular case into a judgment of people in general.

When I think about things I spend money on, however, that's totally out the window - I don't have the attention span, the purpose, the knowledge or the constancy to spend for the future effectively. And when I was at college, because the spending was to allow my education and improvement, it was even harder to see the purpose because I couldn't see any way to apply my education to anything that was going on in my life, except in a frivolous manner.

And as a paranoid person, the former is not comforting because I end up contemplating the possibilty that the work itself was manufactured to make me happy, rather than to give assistance to the callers I was hoping to provide some assistance to, or the employers who were paying me - and yet, the work is important, and I'm failing to deal with that work.

Yeah this post makes about as much sense as a school shooting i.e. I have no idea what it is you're trying to say

[Parrhesia]

Anyone got a link to that article about some lawyer panicking about the recession despite his close-to-a-million dollars or whatever it was? I dunno, he'd gotten used to living with stupid amounts of expenses and simply couldn't see that the solution was 'maybe stop doing that because it's really fucking expensive'. He had pets that he hired other people to look after. On a more or less permanent basis. Who the fuck even does that.

[Esau of Isaac]

Anyone got a link to that article about some lawyer panicking about the recession despite his close-to-a-million dollars or whatever it was? I dunno, he'd gotten used to living with stupid amounts of expenses and simply couldn't see that the solution was 'maybe stop doing that because it's really fucking expensive'. He had pets that he hired other people to look after. On a more or less permanent basis. Who the fuck even does that.

Well yeah, part of having an income is the expenses that go along with life at that income level. For someone who is very rich going to expensive restaurants and parties may be part of the life they are used to having. A loss of income will shock them, then, because they're trying to maintain their ordinary life without the means to do so. I am sure that many here have things that you often do: Go to the movies every once in awhile, eat a hamburger from some favorite joint, pick up a tea from 7-Eleven every other day, whatever. If your income was cut in half making this impossible, most of you wouldn't right out say, "Okay, I can't do all of that anymore," you'd try to find a way to continue doing it. Because that's part of your daily routine.

For the vast majority of people in America, abject poverty is not an issue. It's not a question of whether you will survive, but rather whether you will maintain the life you have now, or gain enough to make it easier. Having lived in lower class conditions before as a younger child, I can't say I was ever afraid that I was going to starve, but I was often afraid of whether we'd have a Christmas tree, presents, etc.

[Chiki]

^ and that is the reason why Western people have despicable values.

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't get what you mean

[Chiki]

That Americans and such whine about how they want to maintain a comfortable lifestyle when there's people starving on the other side of the world.

[Esau of Isaac]

That Americans and such whine about how they want to maintain a comfortable lifestyle when there's people starving on the other side of the world.

It may be harsh, but most people just don't care about others they don't know. I have a hard time believing that you are anywhere near the form of poverty that those people are in, but I doubt you are donating everything you own to make their lives better. Raising people from poverty is more than simply giving them food and blankets: There are myriad socioeconomic reasons that lie behind any given peoples' condition, and changing any one of them into the modern areas we live in may be a massive undertaking economically and culturally.

I don't think it's despicable that people just want to live a comfortable life in peace.

[Chiki]

I doubt you are donating everything you own to make their lives better.

I don't have a job, nor do I have many possessions of my own. All the stuff I own that I care about can fit in one luggage (which is how I go back and forth between the two places I live).

I don't think it's despicable that people just want to live a comfortable life in peace.

There's nothing wrong with that considered in isolation, but the issue is that there are many other people who don't. My view is that people should be willing to at least let go if some of the things they take for granted (sports cars, an obnoxious amount of shoes, fine restaurants, etc.) and be willing to give more to others.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't have a job, nor do I have many possessions of my own. All the stuff I own that I care about can fit in one luggage (which is how I go back and forth between the two places I live).

I have a very hard time believing that living in a developed world you lack the ability to transfer some of that to several starving communities. You have resources at your fingertips that could easily feed people even without a bank account stuffed with money. Hell, you could panhandle and in a day get enough money to keep families afloat for some time.

Imagine yourself as someone who makes median income, like $50,000 a year, several thousand which you retain outside of necessities. Are you going to donate every single penny to people that are poorer than you? I'm going to say no, regardless of what you answer with. You won't, because it's a massive inconvenience, and you wouldn't even see or know of the effects it would give. It's for similar reasons to why other such income earners don't sell their worldly possessions and help people in need: It's not that simple, and it's not going to make their lives more enjoyable. The only benefit they would have is a sound sense of morality, something they can get with a much smaller comparative contribution.

There's nothing wrong with that considered in isolation, but the issue is that there are many other people who don't. My view is that people should be willing to at least let go if some of the things they take for granted (sports cars, an obnoxious amount of shoes, fine restaurants, etc.) and be willing to give more to others.

Sure, it's fine to point at the obscenely rich and say that, but use empathy to realize why they don't.

[shadykid]

That Americans and such whine about how they want to maintain a comfortable lifestyle when there's people starving on the other side of the world.

what I don't like about this is that it becomes an excuse to screw over poor people even further, because "there's people starving elsewhere!"

[Chiki]

I've donated all of the clothes and toys that I don't use to poor families in my neighborhood. I've also interned at a government helping with women's rights.

Esau, quit with your ad hominem. Attack my argument instead of myself.

And I wasn't claiming that we should give away every penny and everything we own. I'm saying we should find a balance. Surely you are not so irrational as to disagree with that.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Olwen

[Esau of Isaac]

I've donated all of the clothes and toys that I don't use to poor families in my neighborhood. I've also interned at a government helping with women's rights.

Esau, quit with your ad hominem. Attack my argument instead of myself.

And I wasn't claiming that we should give away every penny and everything we own. I'm saying we should find a balance. Surely you are not so irrational as to disagree with that.

What ad hominem? I never attacked your character at any point.

What balance? What is balance? Is it ten percent of your income? Half? Is this some kind of poor tax or something? How much is morally okay to keep to yourself? Is it okay to spend money and time on things other than saving the poor and needy?

It's okay to want people who are starving to not be starving. It's irrational to point the finger at developed societies and act as though they are problematic for not magically making these people not starve.

[Chiki]

You were shifting the argument away from reason and onto myself. While it may not be an attack per se, it still qualifies as ad hominem.

You can ask those sorts of skeptical questions about anything arbitrary. At which point does a ball become red? At 50.0000000001 percent? Or 49.99999999 percent? That question is never going to be solved.

The trick is to find a reasonable arbitrary line via reason and democracy.

Western nations do hold the key to save the world from starvation. Isn't there like 10 trillion bucks owned by all the world's major rich people in banks in places like Monaco and Switzerland? I'm pretty sure that alone would work. And then we could take a sizeable portion from every rich family's income. Surely that would work too.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-global-elite-are-hiding-18-trillion-dollars-in-offshore-banks/5317691

My bad, it was 18 trillion not 10. I think it's perfectly justifiable to steal all of that money and give it to the poor. The rich scum who keep that money for themselves should not be allowed to keep it. It should be given away.

[Esau of Isaac]

You were shifting the argument away from reason and onto myself. While it may not be an attack per se, it still qualifies as ad hominem.

No it doesn't, and no I wasn't. Explaining why you do what you do doesn't shift away from your argument so long as it's relevant to the conversation. If I were saying that your point is invalid specifically because you are not a donating person that would constitute an ad hominem, but that's not what I am saying.

You can ask those sorts of skeptical questions about anything arbitrary. At which point does a ball become red? At 50.0000000001 percent? Or 49.99999999 percent? That question is never going to be solved.

The trick is to find a reasonable arbitrary line via reason and democracy.

Western nations do hold the key to save the world from starvation. Isn't there like 10 trillion bucks owned by all the world's major rich people in banks in places like Monaco and Switzerland? I'm pretty sure that alone would work. And then we could take a sizeable portion from every rich family's income. Surely that would work too.

Work how? What do you think will happen? How would you plan to force this money out of peoples' hands? How would it be spent? Where and how would you allocate these resources?

My bad, it was 18 trillion not 10. I think it's perfectly justifiable to steal all of that money and give it to the poor. The rich scum who keep that money for themselves should not be allowed to keep it. It should be given away.

Why? What about being rich means it's okay to take from them? Are you under the impression that people being rich makes others poor? It doesn't. The economy is not some sort of closed system where as some people get richer others become less rich.

[Chiki]

No it doesn't, and no I wasn't.

Wikipedia defines ad hominem as an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. You've been asking me multiple questions about myself and attempting to point out that I myself don't follow my own reasoning. So your claim is by definition ad hominem.

Work how? What do you think will happen? How would you plan to force this money out of peoples' hands? How would it be spent? Where and how would you allocate these resources?

I am not making a practical argument. I am simply making a rational, ethical argument--that is, is it the right thing to take money away from rich people who have no need for that money whatsoever, other than spending it

Before you say "whatever is impractical is morally wrong," practical /=/ moral. For example, consider 3 drunk drivers. One goes back home from the bar safely. One hits someone on the road but they get injured lightly. The third drunk driver kills a pedestrian on the way home.

Is the morally right thing to do to imprison both drunk drivers equally? Yes, as none of them intended to kill anyone and it was a matter of luck who hit or killed the pedestrian or got back home safely. But is it practical to imprison the drunk driver who got back home safely for as long as the drunk driver who killed someone? No.

The same logic applies to taking money from the rich. Is it impractical and a difficult to achieve goal? Maybe, even though I think it's possible. For the sake of argument, I'll say yes. But this does not mean that it is the wrong thing to do. It is absolutely morally justified to take money away from people who keep it around for no reason.

Instead of asking a bunch of more arbitrary questions, try to look at the issue from the moral side.

Why? What about being rich means it's okay to take from them? Are you under the impression that people being rich makes others poor? It doesn't. The economy is not some sort of closed system where as some people get richer others become less rich.

See above argument. Rich people have no need for the money, and they simply keep it around for the sake of having money.

[Esau of Isaac]

Wikipedia defines ad hominem as an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. You've been asking me multiple questions about myself and attempting to point out that I myself don't follow my own reasoning. So your claim is by definition ad hominem.

It was against your argument by using human behavior as an example, in this case yours. It did not ignore your argument. It was not an ad hominem in the least sense.

I am not making a practical argument. I am simply making a rational, ethical argument--that is, is it the right thing to take money away from rich people who have no need for that money whatsoever, other than spending it

I disagree with the idea that it's okay to steal from people because you don't like how they're spending (or saving) their money.

Instead of asking a bunch of more arbitrary questions, try to look at the issue from the moral side.

I already have. It doesn't make any sense at all. You are reasoning that people that have a lot of money should not be allowed to have a lot of money. You haven't said why. Why should poorer people be entitled to the rich's resources? Why is income inequality necessarily a bad thing?

See above argument. Rich people have no need for the money, and they simply keep it around for the sake of having money.

Which rich people? What are you even talking about? The vastest majority of those you likely view as unfairly rich invest it into the economy in their own fashion. Just because they are rich doesn't mean other people are suffering as a result. They cause no harm to anyone by being more rich. Why should they suffer simply because they worked hard and attained wealth? That defeats the entire purpose of effort on an economist's part. What kind of entrepreneur would want to take part in a game where he will have all of the profits he makes seized simply because he succeeded in his venture?

Edited May 2, 2013 by Esau of Isaac