3 ms·
These studies never seem to address the "keeping up with the Jones" factor, or more broadly, that social opinions shape how much we care about money. I think a
by keiferski 2y ago
These studies never seem to address the "keeping up with the Jones" factor, or more broadly, that social opinions shape how much we care about money. I think a lot of people would be near "maximum happy levels" [1.] with very little money, but are indirectly socially pressured into needing more money in order to buy more stuff. A few centuries ago, it was normal for kids to have only a few toys, adults to have a few dozen books, at most, and this was typical. I don't think kids then were less happy because they didn't have modern consumer abundance.
Today, the social expectations on say, eating out at restaurants frequently, traveling for vacation, and so on are expensive, and to be a deliberately frugal person living in an urban area requires a lot of discipline and asocial behavior that wasn't necessary before.
It would be interesting to do a study like this that selected people who care less about money, or at least cared less about the social expectations of money – and then see what an extra $500 or $5,000 would do.
1. Assuming their basic needs like food, shelter, clothing, parks, etc. are met with a decent level of quality.
- Buttons840 2y agoYeah, if nobody can afford a computer, then people gather outside and talk and laugh and the kids play. If only you can't afford a computer, then you can't talk to anyone, who have all gathered online, and you can't know about community events, and you didn't see the latest meme people are joking about. So it's not about whether or not I can afford a computer.
- coldtea 2y ago>If only you can't afford a computer, then you can't talk to anyone, who have all gathered online, and you can't know about community events, and you didn't see the latest meme people are joking about. So it's a win-win situation!
- crooked-v 2y ago> A few centuries ago, it was normal for kids to have only a few toys, adults to have a few dozen books, at most, and this was typical. That stuff was "keeping up with the Joneses", though. Check out the price for even a simple bedframe in the pre-industrial era. Such things may seem like 'simple' necessities to us now, but for people of the era, budgeting money and/or home-crafting time for even basics like clothes, furniture, and work tools was a major ongoing commitment.
- keiferski 2y agoMy point is more that if a person today used that past amount of stuff, they would still be "capable" of being happy. It's not the extra stuff that makes people happy today. The difference is that society has innumerable ways of pumping FOMO into your head, especially via advertising and social expectations. In other words, if a group of people today made a town where everyone had anti-FOMO/consumerist values, kids only had a few wooden toys and not 5,000 Pokemon cards, etc., I don't think the lack of money and stuff would make them less happy. This makes me think that a group like the Amish would be worth studying WRT money and happiness.
- Earw0rm 2y agoBeing autistic enough to not give a damn is kind of a superpower here.
- em500 2y agoStudies thad do address relative status: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21f7/1b1ce15b2541bb74fef385839942e7389e42.pdf https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/21f7/1b1ce15b2541bb74fef385... https://personal.eur.nl/veenhoven/Pub1980s/89f-full.pdf https://personal.eur.nl/veenhoven/Pub1980s/89f-full.pdf