4 ms·

> If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score. I think another side of the problem is 99% of people who are not rich a

> If your using money to keep score your probably using the wrong system to keep score. I think another side of the problem is 99% of people who are not rich are using the same score and since they are "losing" they hate the rich. If we all stop using money as the score we'd all be better off.

UK-AL 9y ago
Remember there a lot of people where more money can actually make a huge difference in their lives. Most people have a tiny amount of savings, and are struggling to get by.
Blackthorn 9y ago
That's very easy to say when you have money, and not really possible to do when you don't have money.
sharemywin 9y ago
You can keep score how ever you like.
sordidasset 9y ago
What quantifiable system of keeping score is as universally applicaple as money? Money is an awful way to keep score on a global scale, but it seems to be the best we have.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  What does the score of money measure?
  - sharemywin 9y ago
    I think that's the point. It's a great way to trade trinkets. It's an ok system for other things. It's horrible for tracking role models and life work. Taxes are a "quick fix"
- sharemywin 9y ago
  seems like this would be at least a better start: https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/08/the-50-americans-who-gave-away-the-most-money-in-2016/#1f2cbf6f5cf8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/08/the-5...
technofiend 9y ago
How do you define having "enough" money? There was a Wall Street Journal survey many years ago and the majority who responded said something like "If I made twice as much money as I do now I'd be happy." Never mind the fact that the survey covered enough income levels that people who made $30k were wishing for $60k and those who made $60k were wishing for $120k. I think unfortunately for most people their expenditures rise with their income and they struggle to get ahead. I'm not saying striving to get ahead is wrong, I'm just saying some people end up treading water no matter where they are. WSJ has definitely tried to answer "how much is enough" and googling for that returns things like https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-money-buy-happiness-heres-what-science-has-to-say-1415569538 https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-money-buy-happiness-heres-w... >What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it. And https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/07/the-perfect-salary-for-happiness-75000-a-year/ https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/07/the-perfect-salary-f... >The Perfect Salary for Happiness: $75,000 I'm not sure there's really one answer.
- jghn 9y ago
  Over the last 5 years my salary has doubled, so I suppose I can look at this thought experiment pretty objectively. The short answer is that you're right but so are they. I am happier, but not as happy as I thought I'd be because my expenses have also increased. Also, beyond increased expenses the horizon of what is possible has also improved and those things are more expensive. So yes, there's all of that. But as i started with I am happier due to having more money. There are all sorts of things I'm able to just do without thinking about it now, things where I'd previously need to consider "if I do X I wont be able to do Y next week". I don't have to trade a retirement savings for a comfortable lifestyle. I'm able to afford more and better leisure activities. And then, to tie it back to your side, I go visit my friends who make twice as much as I do and I realize how much better off I could be.
  - technofiend 9y ago
    If I can presume to summarize your thoughts which coincidentally line up with mine: "Happiness increases with income, but not linearly."
Frondo 9y ago
My friends and I would like to pay our rent and buy our food and maintain our cars with the thing you propose we keep score with, instead of money.
- sharemywin 9y ago
  I'm not arguing against money. I'm saying if you have excess your going to personally get more out of sharing it than hoarding it as some number. And if your looking for role models "greedy hoarders" (not all rich people) might not be a good role model.
sharemywin 9y ago
you're actually proving my point, btw. Hating the rich isn't the solution either. Still keeping score based on money. Not that you should spend a lot of time judging other people, but if you want to turn "lifetime achievement" into a score maybe we should find another scoring system.

UK-AL 9y ago

Remember there a lot of people where more money can actually make a huge difference in their lives. Most people have a tiny amount of savings, and are struggling to get by.

Blackthorn 9y ago

That's very easy to say when you have money, and not really possible to do when you don't have money.

sharemywin 9y ago

You can keep score how ever you like.

sordidasset 9y ago

What quantifiable system of keeping score is as universally applicaple as money? Money is an awful way to keep score on a global scale, but it seems to be the best we have.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago
What does the score of money measure?
- sharemywin 9y ago
  I think that's the point. It's a great way to trade trinkets. It's an ok system for other things. It's horrible for tracking role models and life work. Taxes are a "quick fix"
sharemywin 9y ago
seems like this would be at least a better start: https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/08/the-50-americans-who-gave-away-the-most-money-in-2016/#1f2cbf6f5cf8 https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2017/02/08/the-5...

technofiend 9y ago

How do you define having "enough" money? There was a Wall Street Journal survey many years ago and the majority who responded said something like "If I made twice as much money as I do now I'd be happy." Never mind the fact that the survey covered enough income levels that people who made $30k were wishing for $60k and those who made $60k were wishing for $120k. I think unfortunately for most people their expenditures rise with their income and they struggle to get ahead. I'm not saying striving to get ahead is wrong, I'm just saying some people end up treading water no matter where they are. WSJ has definitely tried to answer "how much is enough" and googling for that returns things like https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-money-buy-happiness-heres-what-science-has-to-say-1415569538 https://www.wsj.com/articles/can-money-buy-happiness-heres-w... >What matters a lot more than a big income is how people spend it. And https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/07/the-perfect-salary-for-happiness-75000-a-year/ https://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/09/07/the-perfect-salary-f... >The Perfect Salary for Happiness: $75,000 I'm not sure there's really one answer.

jghn 9y ago
Over the last 5 years my salary has doubled, so I suppose I can look at this thought experiment pretty objectively. The short answer is that you're right but so are they. I am happier, but not as happy as I thought I'd be because my expenses have also increased. Also, beyond increased expenses the horizon of what is possible has also improved and those things are more expensive. So yes, there's all of that. But as i started with I am happier due to having more money. There are all sorts of things I'm able to just do without thinking about it now, things where I'd previously need to consider "if I do X I wont be able to do Y next week". I don't have to trade a retirement savings for a comfortable lifestyle. I'm able to afford more and better leisure activities. And then, to tie it back to your side, I go visit my friends who make twice as much as I do and I realize how much better off I could be.
- technofiend 9y ago
  If I can presume to summarize your thoughts which coincidentally line up with mine: "Happiness increases with income, but not linearly."

Frondo 9y ago

My friends and I would like to pay our rent and buy our food and maintain our cars with the thing you propose we keep score with, instead of money.

sharemywin 9y ago
I'm not arguing against money. I'm saying if you have excess your going to personally get more out of sharing it than hoarding it as some number. And if your looking for role models "greedy hoarders" (not all rich people) might not be a good role model.

sharemywin 9y ago

you're actually proving my point, btw. Hating the rich isn't the solution either. Still keeping score based on money. Not that you should spend a lot of time judging other people, but if you want to turn "lifetime achievement" into a score maybe we should find another scoring system.