3 ms·

> Why can't people just enjoy the fact that they're doing better than 90% of the planet (...) I can't understand this mindset that having money to buy crap is

> Why can't people just enjoy the fact that they're doing better than 90% of the planet (...) I can't understand this mindset that having money to buy crap is "doing better" and that people should be "thankful" for it.

ori_b 13y ago
Given a choice between having money that allows you to afford crap, and not having it, I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone will chose to have the money. That implies that people with money -- regardless of how they chose to spend it -- are doing better than people without money.
- chunky1994 13y ago
  I would like to direct you to the study by Dan Gilbert that concluded that a year after either winning the lottery or being paraplegic, the levels of happiness of people were about the same. http://zionsphere.hubpages.com/hub/perceptionofhappiness http://zionsphere.hubpages.com/hub/perceptionofhappiness Unfortunately, I could not find the original study, however that link seems to summarize it pretty reasonably. While most people may choose the money, that choice isn't necessarily better, and hence doesn't mean the people with more money are necessarily 'happier'.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  Given a choice between winning anything for free, and not winning, the choice most people would take is obvious. The point is that "doing better" comes at a cost, and unless you live in a society that taught you to value that above other things, it's pretty hard to understand.
  - oblique63 13y ago
    No, it's pretty simple really: we adapt. We're amazingly flexible creatures and have a knack for adjusting to our conditions, whatever they may be; for 'better' or 'worse'. We actively re-adjust our perspective of the world to balance ourselves. If you grew up under impoverished conditions, that would be your default line, and if you then became 'rich' afterwards, you would probably be happy for an amount of time proportional to the amount of time you spent miserable. But if growing up under 'well-off' conditions, that will be your default line, and objectively speaking, you'd need a lot more to be happy/thankful than the person who started off in a lower position than you, just because you adapted to your living conditions that well. That being said, tradition/values/morals/etc are all a part of our environments just as much as our pay checks. This strong ability to adapt to our environments is what helped us survive so well; unfortunately, it's also the same trait that makes us treat bills like they were saber-tooth tigers. EDIT: To clarify, I dislike 'first-world problem' rants as much as anybody else, but the problem isn't the people writing them. The problem is right there in the name of it: the "first-world".
- baddox 13y ago
  It only implies that if you think people are reasonably capable of predicting how happy a given amount of wealth will make them in the future. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this isn't the case.

ori_b 13y ago

Given a choice between having money that allows you to afford crap, and not having it, I'd be willing to bet that almost everyone will chose to have the money. That implies that people with money -- regardless of how they chose to spend it -- are doing better than people without money.

chunky1994 13y ago
I would like to direct you to the study by Dan Gilbert that concluded that a year after either winning the lottery or being paraplegic, the levels of happiness of people were about the same. http://zionsphere.hubpages.com/hub/perceptionofhappiness http://zionsphere.hubpages.com/hub/perceptionofhappiness Unfortunately, I could not find the original study, however that link seems to summarize it pretty reasonably. While most people may choose the money, that choice isn't necessarily better, and hence doesn't mean the people with more money are necessarily 'happier'.
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
Given a choice between winning anything for free, and not winning, the choice most people would take is obvious. The point is that "doing better" comes at a cost, and unless you live in a society that taught you to value that above other things, it's pretty hard to understand.
- oblique63 13y ago
  No, it's pretty simple really: we adapt. We're amazingly flexible creatures and have a knack for adjusting to our conditions, whatever they may be; for 'better' or 'worse'. We actively re-adjust our perspective of the world to balance ourselves. If you grew up under impoverished conditions, that would be your default line, and if you then became 'rich' afterwards, you would probably be happy for an amount of time proportional to the amount of time you spent miserable. But if growing up under 'well-off' conditions, that will be your default line, and objectively speaking, you'd need a lot more to be happy/thankful than the person who started off in a lower position than you, just because you adapted to your living conditions that well. That being said, tradition/values/morals/etc are all a part of our environments just as much as our pay checks. This strong ability to adapt to our environments is what helped us survive so well; unfortunately, it's also the same trait that makes us treat bills like they were saber-tooth tigers. EDIT: To clarify, I dislike 'first-world problem' rants as much as anybody else, but the problem isn't the people writing them. The problem is right there in the name of it: the "first-world".
baddox 13y ago
It only implies that if you think people are reasonably capable of predicting how happy a given amount of wealth will make them in the future. There is plenty of evidence to suggest this isn't the case.