@Techaktien I would argue that although many people flee, a large proportion of what we see as poorer people stay in the countries and are potentially happy?
Man creates most problems for himself. security is more important than money. health is more important than security. people can grow up with nothing somewhere on a mountain, in a forest or on the edge of a desert, and busy themselves building up securities: A weather-protected bleibe, food sources & water. so you can build something or live in the built and be happy. of course you are unhappy if then the only cow that brings you milk dies, you would be unhappy if you get a pay cut and can no longer afford milk in the supermarket. the perspective makes it and the living conditions in which you are stuck. so no, I agree with you nothing. for that, the statement is much too sweeping. ♥️🐅
Puh, there we would probably dive further into a philosophical track and I do not like that, because I do not deal with such things. My thought to your said is that if I live on some mountain, far away from civilization, you now arrive with money, with which I could buy (somewhere) theoretically 100 cows, I would probably refuse it. The reasons are quite simple: > I am enough a cow. > I like the cow. > I have no idea where I should buy another cow and you probably don't either, because otherwise you wouldn't offer me so much money. edit: > I can still drink the milk of my cow today and probably tomorrow, money brings me nothing in that sense, but creates the problem that I have to buy a new cow somewhere. 😂
No, money alone does not make you happy. Not even what you can buy with it. I think consumption is the unhappiness driver, because you always want more. Besides, there is always someone who has more. That makes you restless and you can't be happier with that. The whole subject is really difficult.
@NeotheHacker I know many people without money, they are happier, singing, dancing, partying and drinking. We think today where to put it tomorrow, agree with you Dani
@NeotheHacker i don't think consumption makes you happier IF you always want more. personally, i also see money - as in the original post - as a kind of symbol of freedom. With a million in my account I don't have to quit my job, I don't have to drive a Porsche, I don't have to lead a dissolute lifestyle. But if I don't like my job anymore, I can quit without existential fears. I can take longer breaks and push this through with my employer without having to worry. If the car breaks down, I can buy a new one. I know that there is enough for the education and interests of my potential children. For me, money is therefore not a happiness maker. But it can contribute an important building block. I say that because I consume a lot of money that is certainly below average, even though it doesn't have to be.
@KevinC I agree with you! What money is really good for is as a store of value for time! And that's the only thing I see it for. I also have to work 3 shifts as a shift manager. On the side I have 3 MFH with a total of 10 residential units. That was really a lot of work in the last 5 years and I invested a lot of "time". The reward should now be the cash flow that buys me time and the sale of the properties should allow me to retire early. I hope that the plan will work out. Then the investment of my time would have borne fruit. Now this is very dissolute, but there you can see that money can mean something different for many. I don't need much to be happy either. Time for running and with my family makes me happy. And that costs nothing! 😉
@NeotheHacker I can sign it like that. The last 2 weeks I could run exactly once. I'm "only" in the office and during the day, but after 55-60 hours in the office practically without a break (right now it's pretty intense, normal are more like 45) I only make myself ready-made pizza and let myself sprinkle from PC or TV. Not at all what I want in the long run. But I'm just too tired for anything else. I plan to be able to choose a job completely independent of my salary at the latest by the time I'm 40. And then I'll also be able to take off again in sports.
Money is the prime example of diminishing marginal utility. The less I have, the more difference 1€ makes. The more I have, the less difference 1€ makes. If I earn 1,500€ net and I get 200€ more, that's a huge difference If I earn 5,000€ net and I get 200€ more, that's nice to have At 10,000€, it almost doesn't matter As long as I can go on vacation, treat myself to certain things and don't have to turn over every euro twice, I'm happy. Would I be happier if I could fly business instead of economy? Honestly, I don't think so. At the latest, when it comes to deciding between business and first class, it shouldn't even matter anymore.
Money alone does not make you happy because health and family are just as important. However, money solves many problems and gives you more freedom and you can treat yourself and your family to something.
With money, you have the freedom to decide that you can live as if you had none. However, money does not make you free from worries. The worries are often of a different kind, but they can be just as burdensome as the worries that one has when the money is missing. Poverty and its consequences are enormously dependent on the region in which one lives. While in Germany there is a good social safety net, poverty in other areas can quickly become life-threatening. Poverty is often romanticized, because where there is nothing, there is no obligation. Thoreau once wrote: "But if the farmer owns the house in reality, he may not have become richer, but poorer. He does not own the house - the house owns him. The objection raised by Momus to the house built by Minerva was, in my opinion, perfectly valid. He said:' She didn't make the house movable and so you can't escape bad neighborhood.' The same reproach is justified even nowadays, for our houses are such clumsy possessions that we more often live in them as prisoners rather than dwell in them. The bad neighborhood, however, which we try to avoid, is our own base self."-Henry David Thoreau. Walden
@Smudeo just short summary: "Hedonic adaptation is the tendency of people to quickly return to a relatively stable level of happiness despite major positive or negative events or changes in life" e.g. with money it means that if you earn a lot of money, you get happier during a short time, but in the long run this happiness level returns to a normal level.
It is clear to me what the post is supposed to say. In my opinion, money brings less happiness than it enables me to experience happiness. There is a diminishing return. For example, I myself have certain goals (financial security, home ownership) that enable me to be happy and that I strive for. Would I be unhappy with less money? Possibly not. I would learn to get along with less. Of course, this is a luxury position and only valid within a limited framework. If I reduce working hours, I am probably happier (if I can afford it) than if I continue to work full time. However, it takes a lot of money and income to make that decision. So money often plays an important role in happiness.
@TradingMelone true, but that's your steep thesis ;) techaktien only says that poverty doesn't make you happier. And IMHO that's always true, unless you were already rich (there are some who become happy by giving everything away - but even they had to be rich to become happier from being poor) so someone poor can be happy, but they don't become happier from being poor (or poorer).