4 ms·

I was told that there’s a secret that only rich people know, and that’s that money does not make you happy. I’m excluding things like being homeless or not bein

I was told that there’s a secret that only rich people know, and that’s that money does not make you happy. I’m excluding things like being homeless or not being able to eat, obviously there’s a necessary amount anyone needs to feel good. But beyond that it doesn’t change things. Otherwise, rich, famous, successful people would never be depressed, but a lot of them are.

carabiner 5y ago
I have to be blunt here; this is plutocrat propaganda. Yes, being rich doesn't guarantee happiness. It doesn't spare you from (all) illness (though it STRONGLY improves your healthcare odds in the US) or the trauma of a messy divorce. But being rich is enormously better than experiencing all of life's ills while being poor. If the advantages of wealth did not outweigh the disadvantages, we would see the wealthy abandoning their wealth en masse. Clearly they are not. The purpose of the "money isn't everything" mantra is to engender a servant class to preserve the wealth of our rulers.
- TedShiller 5y ago
  No question it’s better to be wealthy than poor. Most people here are talking about being rich vs just being normal. Put another way, there’s a HUGE difference between not having enough and having enough. There’s almost no difference between having enough and having more than enough. You can play this out with anything: money, food, free time, etc
  - carabiner 5y ago
    Normal among millennials is being poor. Six-figure debt while working an hourly job with zero savings.
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      I don’t think six figure debt is normal. It also depends on where the debt is from. Is it something they had to do (borrow money for food and rent) or elected to do (borrow money for low income degree)?
      - not2b 5y ago
        In the US, for the young, it may mean that you went to college. You have the equivalent of a mortgage with no house. And this is new: in many cases someone from their parents' generation who got the same degree and the same job would be debt free, because college used to be much, much less expensive (even after accounting for inflation) than it is now. Example: University of California (Berkeley or UCLA, etc). Currently about $12k a year tuition. 35-40 years ago is was zero, with a couple of hundred dollars in fees.
    - uberduper 5y ago
      This is not normal. This is a vocal, and somewhat obnoxious, minority of millennials.
      - TedShiller 5y ago
        Most millennials are hardworking and responsible. A very vocal minority are not.
    - shukantpal 5y ago
      Regardless of that statement's truthiness, that's very much irrelevant for the OP. Nowhere did they say they were broke.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        They did say “I’m at the bottom with nothing.” It’s not a long walk from there to “they said they were broke”.
    - xvedejas 5y ago
      Hourly job with zero savings, sure. But is six-figure debt really common? I can find that the mean indebtedness is five figures, surely the median (amongst those without mortgages) is much less than that?
  - yellowcake0 5y ago
    Normal is still pretty shitty when compared to being a member of the aristocratic leisure class. Of course there are diminishing returns to the happiness value of money, but it's a hell of a lot higher than being a normal middle class American.
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      Imagine if a member of this super rich aristocratic class has depression. That must be hopeless.
      - yellowcake0 5y ago
        Why would it be hopeless? They have the time, energy and resources to address it properly. Someone with depression who works two jobs without health insurance and is too exhausted outside of work to do anything but watch TV, now that's hopeless.
        TedShiller 5y ago
        > Someone with depression who works two jobs without health insurance and is too exhausted outside of work to do anything but watch TV, now that's hopeless. I agree. Now take someone who doesn’t have any of those problems and is in fact super rich, who still feels the same. I’m not sure if that would be better or worse actually.
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        It would certainly be worse. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs allows the truly rich to achieve stability and control over external events, situations, and outcomes. Rich people can afford to not do things that directly or indirectly contribute to depressive symptoms. This doesn’t mean they aren’t just as depressed as a poor person with depression, but the poor person has no assets with which to edify themselves.
        DarylZero 5y ago
- silisili 5y ago
  I'm not sure it's all propaganda. Of course having money is better than having no money, and makes one happier. But that likely tops out at some point. One famous study said 75k, another disputed that. There's a lot of 'hidden' costs too. Of course I'd be happier with an extra couple million dollars today - I could travel and retire! But not if I had to give up 18/hr a day for the next 5 years to get there.
- rige 5y ago
  I'm reading a biography of the philosopher Seneca. His life is an interesting example of your final point. He was truly one of the ultra-rich in Roman society -- as one of Nero's top advisors, he amassed a fortune, which was arguably not obtained through honest or entirely virtuous means (being primarily from a famously cruel emperor). But some of his famous letters argued that wealth isn't everything, money is "preferred" but not necessary to be a good person, etc. While I think there are some great points to remember in those writings, viewed in context against the author being one of the richest people in the Roman empire at the time it's hard not to see a parallel to your point that the mantra can be "plutocrat propaganda."
- drstewart 5y ago
  > Yes, being rich doesn't guarantee happiness. I have to be blunt here: this is plutocrat propaganda. No? Because that's the saying. The saying isn't "being rich isn't better than being poor". It's literally "money doesn't buy happiness". Your argument is literally a strawman argument. No one made the argument you are rebutting against.
fdgsdfogijq 5y ago
Completely false. I know a ton of rich people, and their lives are so much better after coming into money. This is literally the biggest lie ever told. The possibilities in life go way up with money, you are no longer bogged down by a 9 to 5 job, you can really develop yourself in ways that may take decades to realize
- tartoran 5y ago
  You could. But you could also degenerate into a pleasure seeking junkie or enjoy it for a while and succumb to existential depression or surround onself with false friends with interests and feel completely alone. But I’d still argue that having money does confer more options after all.
- drstewart 5y ago
  How is it false? Money doesn't buy happiness. Period. If you don't agree with that, then do you agree with the statement: "Not being in a war zone doesn't make you happy"? No? But I know a ton of people that moved out of a war zone and their lives were better! Therefore, if you don't live in a war zone, you MUST be happy. Anyone who doesn't live in a war zone and claims they aren't happy is literally telling the biggest lie ever told.
madaxe_again 5y ago
It doesn’t bring happiness, no, but not having to particularly worry about what things cost, or whether you can afford an unexpected expense makes a huge difference to quality of life. I started broke - unable to pay rent, eating bulk rice with stolen ketchup, defaulting on medical debts - and damn did it suck. Now it’s just “pay the money, move on, forget about it”. I also extend this to friends when I see they are facing a steamroller, as I haven’t forgotten the sleepless nights, and nor have my stumps of teeth. I don’t do debts, just a hope that if and when I find myself against the wall, they’ll be there for me in whatever measure they can muster. It hasn’t brought happiness, but it has removed one huge element of worry from my existence. I’m still depressed, but that’s independent of any external factors, and I’ve grown to not mind it - being depressed is nowhere near as bad when you have a comfort blanket of cash.

carabiner 5y ago

I have to be blunt here; this is plutocrat propaganda. Yes, being rich doesn't guarantee happiness. It doesn't spare you from (all) illness (though it STRONGLY improves your healthcare odds in the US) or the trauma of a messy divorce. But being rich is enormously better than experiencing all of life's ills while being poor. If the advantages of wealth did not outweigh the disadvantages, we would see the wealthy abandoning their wealth en masse. Clearly they are not. The purpose of the "money isn't everything" mantra is to engender a servant class to preserve the wealth of our rulers.

TedShiller 5y ago
No question it’s better to be wealthy than poor. Most people here are talking about being rich vs just being normal. Put another way, there’s a HUGE difference between not having enough and having enough. There’s almost no difference between having enough and having more than enough. You can play this out with anything: money, food, free time, etc
- carabiner 5y ago
  Normal among millennials is being poor. Six-figure debt while working an hourly job with zero savings.
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    I don’t think six figure debt is normal. It also depends on where the debt is from. Is it something they had to do (borrow money for food and rent) or elected to do (borrow money for low income degree)?
    - not2b 5y ago
      In the US, for the young, it may mean that you went to college. You have the equivalent of a mortgage with no house. And this is new: in many cases someone from their parents' generation who got the same degree and the same job would be debt free, because college used to be much, much less expensive (even after accounting for inflation) than it is now. Example: University of California (Berkeley or UCLA, etc). Currently about $12k a year tuition. 35-40 years ago is was zero, with a couple of hundred dollars in fees.
  - uberduper 5y ago
    This is not normal. This is a vocal, and somewhat obnoxious, minority of millennials.
    - TedShiller 5y ago
      Most millennials are hardworking and responsible. A very vocal minority are not.
  - shukantpal 5y ago
    Regardless of that statement's truthiness, that's very much irrelevant for the OP. Nowhere did they say they were broke.
    - sokoloff 5y ago
      They did say “I’m at the bottom with nothing.” It’s not a long walk from there to “they said they were broke”.
  - xvedejas 5y ago
    Hourly job with zero savings, sure. But is six-figure debt really common? I can find that the mean indebtedness is five figures, surely the median (amongst those without mortgages) is much less than that?
- yellowcake0 5y ago
  Normal is still pretty shitty when compared to being a member of the aristocratic leisure class. Of course there are diminishing returns to the happiness value of money, but it's a hell of a lot higher than being a normal middle class American.
  - TedShiller 5y ago
    Imagine if a member of this super rich aristocratic class has depression. That must be hopeless.
    - yellowcake0 5y ago
      Why would it be hopeless? They have the time, energy and resources to address it properly. Someone with depression who works two jobs without health insurance and is too exhausted outside of work to do anything but watch TV, now that's hopeless.
      - TedShiller 5y ago
        > Someone with depression who works two jobs without health insurance and is too exhausted outside of work to do anything but watch TV, now that's hopeless. I agree. Now take someone who doesn’t have any of those problems and is in fact super rich, who still feels the same. I’m not sure if that would be better or worse actually.
        aspenmayer 5y ago
        It would certainly be worse. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs allows the truly rich to achieve stability and control over external events, situations, and outcomes. Rich people can afford to not do things that directly or indirectly contribute to depressive symptoms. This doesn’t mean they aren’t just as depressed as a poor person with depression, but the poor person has no assets with which to edify themselves.
        DarylZero 5y ago
silisili 5y ago
I'm not sure it's all propaganda. Of course having money is better than having no money, and makes one happier. But that likely tops out at some point. One famous study said 75k, another disputed that. There's a lot of 'hidden' costs too. Of course I'd be happier with an extra couple million dollars today - I could travel and retire! But not if I had to give up 18/hr a day for the next 5 years to get there.
rige 5y ago
I'm reading a biography of the philosopher Seneca. His life is an interesting example of your final point. He was truly one of the ultra-rich in Roman society -- as one of Nero's top advisors, he amassed a fortune, which was arguably not obtained through honest or entirely virtuous means (being primarily from a famously cruel emperor). But some of his famous letters argued that wealth isn't everything, money is "preferred" but not necessary to be a good person, etc. While I think there are some great points to remember in those writings, viewed in context against the author being one of the richest people in the Roman empire at the time it's hard not to see a parallel to your point that the mantra can be "plutocrat propaganda."
drstewart 5y ago
> Yes, being rich doesn't guarantee happiness. I have to be blunt here: this is plutocrat propaganda. No? Because that's the saying. The saying isn't "being rich isn't better than being poor". It's literally "money doesn't buy happiness". Your argument is literally a strawman argument. No one made the argument you are rebutting against.

fdgsdfogijq 5y ago

Completely false. I know a ton of rich people, and their lives are so much better after coming into money. This is literally the biggest lie ever told. The possibilities in life go way up with money, you are no longer bogged down by a 9 to 5 job, you can really develop yourself in ways that may take decades to realize

tartoran 5y ago
You could. But you could also degenerate into a pleasure seeking junkie or enjoy it for a while and succumb to existential depression or surround onself with false friends with interests and feel completely alone. But I’d still argue that having money does confer more options after all.
drstewart 5y ago
How is it false? Money doesn't buy happiness. Period. If you don't agree with that, then do you agree with the statement: "Not being in a war zone doesn't make you happy"? No? But I know a ton of people that moved out of a war zone and their lives were better! Therefore, if you don't live in a war zone, you MUST be happy. Anyone who doesn't live in a war zone and claims they aren't happy is literally telling the biggest lie ever told.

madaxe_again 5y ago

It doesn’t bring happiness, no, but not having to particularly worry about what things cost, or whether you can afford an unexpected expense makes a huge difference to quality of life. I started broke - unable to pay rent, eating bulk rice with stolen ketchup, defaulting on medical debts - and damn did it suck. Now it’s just “pay the money, move on, forget about it”. I also extend this to friends when I see they are facing a steamroller, as I haven’t forgotten the sleepless nights, and nor have my stumps of teeth. I don’t do debts, just a hope that if and when I find myself against the wall, they’ll be there for me in whatever measure they can muster. It hasn’t brought happiness, but it has removed one huge element of worry from my existence. I’m still depressed, but that’s independent of any external factors, and I’ve grown to not mind it - being depressed is nowhere near as bad when you have a comfort blanket of cash.