3 ms·

It's more that abundance in formative years spoils you for life.

kylecordes 4y ago
Extreme are often bad. Having either not enough, or excessively much early on, lead to various irrational or otherwise maladaptive behaviors later. Humans perform best in a happy middle range along many axes.
- april_22 4y ago
  This is so true. The middle is the best for most things in life. Too much pleasure can also mean pain
cs137 4y ago
Debateable. The reason rich kids turn into such pieces of shit isn't material abundance (since, after all, anyone born before ~1990 in the middle class also experienced material abundance) but the unearned high social status and the impunity that comes with it. Deprivation and poverty, on the other hand, fuck people up severely--often, through no fault of their own--and there's tons of empirical evidence showing this.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Yeah and like rich kids have impunity, poor kids have excess punishment meted out against them. Scapegoated a lot of the time.
- ponow 4y ago
  Huh? Social status is relative, that is, defined by some kind of difference in a characteristic over which there is some competition (like wealth, looks, connections, fame, etc.). So how do you get that rich kid status without reference to material abundance? Remember, most people are comparatively poor: the wealth histogram is heavily skewed toward zero and with a wide tail toward infinity. It's impossible for everyone to be relatively wealthy and relatively high status. It is possible for everyone to have absolute wealth (or at least income) beyond a fixed absolute level, yet still widely disparate status.
  - oh_sigh 4y ago
    Is there a "material abundance" difference between a new Benz and a 25 year old Camry? I wouldn't think so, they both fulfill the same basic role and are composed of approximately the same materials, but getting dropped off at school in one will get you unearned social clout and the other might get you unearned social derision.
    - ponow 4y ago
      Unless you're claiming violent seizure, then the Benz had a good probability of being earned by someone, thus meriting some social clout by those who value those contributions. I have a pickup over a decade old and with a noisy muffler, and write comments on forums like this instead of, apparently, providing value sufficient to afford more. It's not meritorious, and I receive and deserve some derision. Well at least I don't genuflect before the God of egalitarianism, so I'll accept credit for that.
      - oh_sigh 4y ago
        In almost all situations, a high school student being dropped off by parents in a fancy car did nothing to help the parents earn the fancy car. In fact, generally kids at that stage are a net negative on parents finances.
        ponow 4y ago
        The key is that the wealth used to buy the car was earned (unless evidence to the contrary is convincing). The parents elected to buy an expensive car, and maybe they bought their kid more expensive clothing. But can't you see, that having one's child lack want is (one) motivation for making the efforts to earn wealth? Suppose those parents were otherwise identical (in terms of their privileges), but, like you, decided that such differential wealth displays were to be shunned. Not needing those displays caused them in part to lose motivation to obtain wealth, and thus lose motivation to perform the efforts that would lead to that. So they produce less. Great, now the people who can produce the most are encouraged to produce less. Try selling that to the people who will now be more poor as a consequence. Instead of clipping the knees of the productive, realize that envy can encourage the unproductive to imitate the habits of the productive to themselves become productive. We all benefit indirectly thereby.
fleddr 4y ago
The "for life" remark is interesting in relation to generation Z. Materially, the most spoiled generation ever, through no fault of their own. Material abundance, cheap goods, instant gratification and very liberal parenting. Mediocre work ethic, a something for nothing attitude, if I may exaggerate a little. Peak individualism. ...until they move out and meet actual life. The contrast is quite cruel, so I wonder if "for life" always applies.
trashface 4y ago
Not everyone, I grew up in abundance but became a total cheapo in adulthood. It has been kind of a problem actually. I don't spend on some things that I really should spend on.

Extreme are often bad. Having either not enough, or excessively much early on, lead to various irrational or otherwise maladaptive behaviors later. Humans perform best in a happy middle range along many axes.

april_22 4y ago
This is so true. The middle is the best for most things in life. Too much pleasure can also mean pain

cs137 4y ago

Debateable. The reason rich kids turn into such pieces of shit isn't material abundance (since, after all, anyone born before ~1990 in the middle class also experienced material abundance) but the unearned high social status and the impunity that comes with it. Deprivation and poverty, on the other hand, fuck people up severely--often, through no fault of their own--and there's tons of empirical evidence showing this.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
Yeah and like rich kids have impunity, poor kids have excess punishment meted out against them. Scapegoated a lot of the time.
ponow 4y ago
Huh? Social status is relative, that is, defined by some kind of difference in a characteristic over which there is some competition (like wealth, looks, connections, fame, etc.). So how do you get that rich kid status without reference to material abundance? Remember, most people are comparatively poor: the wealth histogram is heavily skewed toward zero and with a wide tail toward infinity. It's impossible for everyone to be relatively wealthy and relatively high status. It is possible for everyone to have absolute wealth (or at least income) beyond a fixed absolute level, yet still widely disparate status.
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Is there a "material abundance" difference between a new Benz and a 25 year old Camry? I wouldn't think so, they both fulfill the same basic role and are composed of approximately the same materials, but getting dropped off at school in one will get you unearned social clout and the other might get you unearned social derision.
  - ponow 4y ago
    Unless you're claiming violent seizure, then the Benz had a good probability of being earned by someone, thus meriting some social clout by those who value those contributions. I have a pickup over a decade old and with a noisy muffler, and write comments on forums like this instead of, apparently, providing value sufficient to afford more. It's not meritorious, and I receive and deserve some derision. Well at least I don't genuflect before the God of egalitarianism, so I'll accept credit for that.
    - oh_sigh 4y ago
      In almost all situations, a high school student being dropped off by parents in a fancy car did nothing to help the parents earn the fancy car. In fact, generally kids at that stage are a net negative on parents finances.
      - ponow 4y ago
        The key is that the wealth used to buy the car was earned (unless evidence to the contrary is convincing). The parents elected to buy an expensive car, and maybe they bought their kid more expensive clothing. But can't you see, that having one's child lack want is (one) motivation for making the efforts to earn wealth? Suppose those parents were otherwise identical (in terms of their privileges), but, like you, decided that such differential wealth displays were to be shunned. Not needing those displays caused them in part to lose motivation to obtain wealth, and thus lose motivation to perform the efforts that would lead to that. So they produce less. Great, now the people who can produce the most are encouraged to produce less. Try selling that to the people who will now be more poor as a consequence. Instead of clipping the knees of the productive, realize that envy can encourage the unproductive to imitate the habits of the productive to themselves become productive. We all benefit indirectly thereby.

fleddr 4y ago

The "for life" remark is interesting in relation to generation Z. Materially, the most spoiled generation ever, through no fault of their own. Material abundance, cheap goods, instant gratification and very liberal parenting. Mediocre work ethic, a something for nothing attitude, if I may exaggerate a little. Peak individualism. ...until they move out and meet actual life. The contrast is quite cruel, so I wonder if "for life" always applies.

trashface 4y ago

Not everyone, I grew up in abundance but became a total cheapo in adulthood. It has been kind of a problem actually. I don't spend on some things that I really should spend on.