6 ms·

It's easy to understand when you consider that the proverbial "rat race" isn't really about about money; it's about social status. Most people don't real care

It's easy to understand when you consider that the proverbial "rat race" isn't really about about money; it's about social status. Most people don't real care about money, they just need it to buy status symbols with. Add to this that social status confers power and vice versa, so even if a rational king doesn't care for bling personally, he ought to wear something exclusive. Not just be cause displaying bling enhances his status and hence his power. But also because enforcing the sumptuary laws displays power, which confers status, which enhances his power etc.

marak830 9y ago
That's an interesting point of view from my perspective. Most people I know are trying to pay bills and save for a house deposit. The one's purchasing for social status are regarded as wasting their time generally (and speaking from personal experience).
- pdonis 9y ago
  > Most people I know are trying to pay bills and save for a house deposit. Is the house what they actually need or what they think they should have based on their social status?
  - sjwright 9y ago
    It depends to what extent the house, relative to their means, exceeds their practical needs—which would include a reasonable degree of comfort.
  - desu_ 9y ago
    Agreed. If one thinks about it broadly (not just the clichéd look-I-made-it cars) and one might see it more often: having a considered socially desirable spouse/partner, going to certain places on vacation, signalling/posting on SNS. It's really broad, and there is a whole meta. Take a simple thing such as the tech hoodie or t-shirt for instance. Behind the I just like to wear comfortable garments, there is often an attempt to signal that I am making money thanks to my skills, not my look, my company is less boring than yours, etc. I am not saying that there are no true anti-social status people, just that they are likely contrarians and minorities (at least in circles that have escaped the survival mindset).
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Being actively anti-social-status is itself countersignalling - you signal that you're not the kind of person like everyone else out there. I think the only way to escape this is to honestly not care - e.g. choose clothes based purely on utility. I used to feel like that, but as I grew up I realized that social landscape is also part of the environment, so there's utility to be gained by being mindful of what you signal with your clothes or other status symbols. A suit, for example, might not be the most comfortable thing to wear, but can help you navigate the job market and acquire support of other people - in the same way a good pair of mountain shoes can help you navigate rough terrain.
      - stordoff 9y ago
        There's also a sending a "non-signal" aspect to it - as in "I don't care, but I'm choosing wear what everyone else is wearing because I don't want to be asked about it/stand out" (which in some ways is a utility because you don't waste time being asked about thing you don't care about).
  - stordoff 9y ago
    How do you untangle need and want though? Strictly speaking, I only _need_ about one room (room to sleep, a bathroom, and room to prepare food), but I wouldn't be particularly happy with that, but obviously a large part of the latter derives from social status and what others around you have.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  Yep. Status-seeking is definitely not the only reason people need money. And people who have it together don't piss it away on mere status symbols. But to the extent that people are caught in a rat race, then I say it is rarely about money itself except as a means to social status. And as in my example of the rational king, even people who do have it together, need to play the status game in some form.
caf 9y ago
Same reason that cathedrals and courthouses were built as imposing stone buildings.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
Power and status are the ends. Money is the means, or at least a score keeper. Sounds silly when you type it out.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Doesn't sound silly when you realize that status makes you feel good (and also adds to power), and power is literally your ability to shape the world around you to your whims. The more power you have, the more problems you can make go away.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Helping others makes everyone one feel good. I think I can argue that the level of fondness for power that we're talking about does not bring comfort, as it is the result of paranoia. It's from the inabilty to be comfortable with the world; not from a want to change it (which is a symptom). To believe that more and more power (and money) is going to somwhow finally fix things is clearly a fool's errand of Sisyphean proportions.
    - wool_gather 9y ago
      You're right to be wary of abuse and corruption. But I think the parent had a slightly broader view of "power". It's not just imposing yourself on other people. Helping other people itself requires a certain kind of power. If you have no time or resources to spare, your good cause isn't going to get very far. If you have no ability to influence other people with power to help, your impact is limited.
    - croon 9y ago
      I think that's generally the case, but if we flip it then "being comfortable with the world" becomes "complacent", which in turn is abused by someone less keen to relinquish control. I want to live in a world without rat race, corruption, power hunger, etc, but being old enough to realize that it just takes a few to abuse everyone else, I don't know what safeguards need to be put in place first, for that to be possible.
andrewflnr 9y ago
> Most people don't real care about money, they just need it to buy status symbols with. I'm pretty sure you have the causality backwards here. Status symbols exist to show off that you have money. If someone shows off status symbols but everyone knows they don't actually have money, they'll be seen as a poser, not a clever social hacker.
- sjwright 9y ago
  That doesn't seem right to me? Status symbols exist to show off that you have status. If someone shows off status symbols they apparently couldn't afford, the key effect is dilution of the symbol's utility for signalling wealth. (Hundreds of years ago, important signals would be clean skin, clothes and hair. Not to mention your accent, language proficiency and general knowledge. Today these are mostly affordable commodities.)
  - andrewflnr 9y ago
    Yes, that's why people hate posers.
- desu_ 9y ago
  This has been posted here before but it seems relevant (about explaining the lower Japanese salaries vs US, https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan...): “Most people want to become wealthy so they can consume social status. Japanese employers believe this is inefficient, and simply award social status directly.” The best employees aren’t compensated with large option grants or eye popping bonuses — they’re simply anointed as “princes”, given their pick of projects to work on, receive plum assignments, and get their status acknowledged (in ways great and small) by the other employees. Regarding the causality, I disagree with you andrewflnr. For instance, jewelry is older than money and there are even statuses in nonhuman circles. I admit that it's debatable, but I think the value of money comes from the power it gives (you buy other people's time and stuff) but status can do the same and has a more permanent feel (it doesn't deplete linearly, unlike money spent). That's why in some communities, the local priest / doctor teacher is still considered more important than wealthier merchants / land owners. That's why Trump is more powerful than many wealthier billionaires.
restalis 9y ago
"the proverbial "rat race" isn't really about about money; it's about social status. Most people don't real care about money, they just need it to buy status symbols with." My thought is that money helps covering the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Social status is present only in the upper half of it. This should mean that people may care about money but not yet about status. (And as a fun fact, the causes that leads to a "rat race" are harder to ignore as one climbs down on the same Maslow's pyramid, which at least in theory means that it should happen less for social status than for other things.)
- projektir 9y ago
  This assumes Maslov's hierarchy is correct, which there isn't actually any evidence for.
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    And yet if you look at your own behavior and that of others you know, I bet you will find you are motivated at least considerably by the sorts of needs that Maslow described. And when you have to choose between them, I bet you tend to do so roughly according to the set of priorities that his hierarchy presents. Unless, of course, you are a really odd person.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  Adam Smith said that when people want to earn more money than needed for a physically-comfortable existence, it is to achieve esteem over others. Note, by the way, that there is also esteem from being similar to others who like you, and esteem from meeting an absolute standard that others might or might not match too.

marak830 9y ago

That's an interesting point of view from my perspective. Most people I know are trying to pay bills and save for a house deposit. The one's purchasing for social status are regarded as wasting their time generally (and speaking from personal experience).

pdonis 9y ago
> Most people I know are trying to pay bills and save for a house deposit. Is the house what they actually need or what they think they should have based on their social status?
- sjwright 9y ago
  It depends to what extent the house, relative to their means, exceeds their practical needs—which would include a reasonable degree of comfort.
- desu_ 9y ago
  Agreed. If one thinks about it broadly (not just the clichéd look-I-made-it cars) and one might see it more often: having a considered socially desirable spouse/partner, going to certain places on vacation, signalling/posting on SNS. It's really broad, and there is a whole meta. Take a simple thing such as the tech hoodie or t-shirt for instance. Behind the I just like to wear comfortable garments, there is often an attempt to signal that I am making money thanks to my skills, not my look, my company is less boring than yours, etc. I am not saying that there are no true anti-social status people, just that they are likely contrarians and minorities (at least in circles that have escaped the survival mindset).
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Being actively anti-social-status is itself countersignalling - you signal that you're not the kind of person like everyone else out there. I think the only way to escape this is to honestly not care - e.g. choose clothes based purely on utility. I used to feel like that, but as I grew up I realized that social landscape is also part of the environment, so there's utility to be gained by being mindful of what you signal with your clothes or other status symbols. A suit, for example, might not be the most comfortable thing to wear, but can help you navigate the job market and acquire support of other people - in the same way a good pair of mountain shoes can help you navigate rough terrain.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      There's also a sending a "non-signal" aspect to it - as in "I don't care, but I'm choosing wear what everyone else is wearing because I don't want to be asked about it/stand out" (which in some ways is a utility because you don't waste time being asked about thing you don't care about).
- stordoff 9y ago
  How do you untangle need and want though? Strictly speaking, I only _need_ about one room (room to sleep, a bathroom, and room to prepare food), but I wouldn't be particularly happy with that, but obviously a large part of the latter derives from social status and what others around you have.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
Yep. Status-seeking is definitely not the only reason people need money. And people who have it together don't piss it away on mere status symbols. But to the extent that people are caught in a rat race, then I say it is rarely about money itself except as a means to social status. And as in my example of the rational king, even people who do have it together, need to play the status game in some form.

caf 9y ago

Same reason that cathedrals and courthouses were built as imposing stone buildings.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

Power and status are the ends. Money is the means, or at least a score keeper. Sounds silly when you type it out.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Doesn't sound silly when you realize that status makes you feel good (and also adds to power), and power is literally your ability to shape the world around you to your whims. The more power you have, the more problems you can make go away.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Helping others makes everyone one feel good. I think I can argue that the level of fondness for power that we're talking about does not bring comfort, as it is the result of paranoia. It's from the inabilty to be comfortable with the world; not from a want to change it (which is a symptom). To believe that more and more power (and money) is going to somwhow finally fix things is clearly a fool's errand of Sisyphean proportions.
  - wool_gather 9y ago
    You're right to be wary of abuse and corruption. But I think the parent had a slightly broader view of "power". It's not just imposing yourself on other people. Helping other people itself requires a certain kind of power. If you have no time or resources to spare, your good cause isn't going to get very far. If you have no ability to influence other people with power to help, your impact is limited.
  - croon 9y ago
    I think that's generally the case, but if we flip it then "being comfortable with the world" becomes "complacent", which in turn is abused by someone less keen to relinquish control. I want to live in a world without rat race, corruption, power hunger, etc, but being old enough to realize that it just takes a few to abuse everyone else, I don't know what safeguards need to be put in place first, for that to be possible.

andrewflnr 9y ago

> Most people don't real care about money, they just need it to buy status symbols with. I'm pretty sure you have the causality backwards here. Status symbols exist to show off that you have money. If someone shows off status symbols but everyone knows they don't actually have money, they'll be seen as a poser, not a clever social hacker.

sjwright 9y ago
That doesn't seem right to me? Status symbols exist to show off that you have status. If someone shows off status symbols they apparently couldn't afford, the key effect is dilution of the symbol's utility for signalling wealth. (Hundreds of years ago, important signals would be clean skin, clothes and hair. Not to mention your accent, language proficiency and general knowledge. Today these are mostly affordable commodities.)
- andrewflnr 9y ago
  Yes, that's why people hate posers.
desu_ 9y ago
This has been posted here before but it seems relevant (about explaining the lower Japanese salaries vs US, https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan/ https://www.kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doing-business-in-japan...): “Most people want to become wealthy so they can consume social status. Japanese employers believe this is inefficient, and simply award social status directly.” The best employees aren’t compensated with large option grants or eye popping bonuses — they’re simply anointed as “princes”, given their pick of projects to work on, receive plum assignments, and get their status acknowledged (in ways great and small) by the other employees. Regarding the causality, I disagree with you andrewflnr. For instance, jewelry is older than money and there are even statuses in nonhuman circles. I admit that it's debatable, but I think the value of money comes from the power it gives (you buy other people's time and stuff) but status can do the same and has a more permanent feel (it doesn't deplete linearly, unlike money spent). That's why in some communities, the local priest / doctor teacher is still considered more important than wealthier merchants / land owners. That's why Trump is more powerful than many wealthier billionaires.

restalis 9y ago

"the proverbial "rat race" isn't really about about money; it's about social status. Most people don't real care about money, they just need it to buy status symbols with." My thought is that money helps covering the Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Social status is present only in the upper half of it. This should mean that people may care about money but not yet about status. (And as a fun fact, the causes that leads to a "rat race" are harder to ignore as one climbs down on the same Maslow's pyramid, which at least in theory means that it should happen less for social status than for other things.)

projektir 9y ago
This assumes Maslov's hierarchy is correct, which there isn't actually any evidence for.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  And yet if you look at your own behavior and that of others you know, I bet you will find you are motivated at least considerably by the sorts of needs that Maslow described. And when you have to choose between them, I bet you tend to do so roughly according to the set of priorities that his hierarchy presents. Unless, of course, you are a really odd person.
woodandsteel 9y ago
Adam Smith said that when people want to earn more money than needed for a physically-comfortable existence, it is to achieve esteem over others. Note, by the way, that there is also esteem from being similar to others who like you, and esteem from meeting an absolute standard that others might or might not match too.