3 ms·

> ... the goal of making money ... Personally, I feel that if one finds money itself as a goal, then he or she is missing the point of life, or at least that h

> ... the goal of making money ... Personally, I feel that if one finds money itself as a goal, then he or she is missing the point of life, or at least that he or she has a pretty shallow goal. It sounds more like your real question is, "What is the purpose of life?". If you can find a purpose, then you can let money play a part in that purpose when and if money should be needed. If money should not be needed for a particular goal, then money has no place there. Money is a tool like other tools, and it sounds like you are trying to find the purpose of the tool, rather than letting the purpose find its place naturally. > Philosophically, what resources should be accessible only to wealthy people? If you were to ask what should be available only to those who work harder and smarter for the better of humanity, I might say greater success and social recognition. If you are speaking of monetary wealth on its own, then I say nothing extra whatsoever should be available. Money is just a number, like the value of a variable. Looking at the world as a whole, the value of this variable has more to do with fortune, luck, and morality than with hard work. True, if these factors are the same between two persons, the one who works harder and smarter will likely have more money, but these prerequisite factors are never equal in reality.

dudul 11y ago
"Personally, I feel that if one finds money itself as a goal, then he or she is missing the point of life" And that is exactly the purpose of my question. I don't see having money as a goal in itself but as a mean to acquire resources/services. But some services/resources are considered necessary/mandatory, I was wondering where we draw the line and what would be the point of having money if all basic needs were satisfied.
- NateDad 11y ago
  All my basic needs are met plus some. That doesn't mean I don't still want a Tesla, a lakehouse, a new deck on my house, landscapers to mow and pull weeds for me, etc. I don't think you're asking what the point of having money is, I think what you're really asking is, if everyone could live comfortably without working, why would anyone work? My reply would be twofold: 1.) Why is it a requirement that everyone work? 2.) There are plenty of people that work a lot harder than they need to, because they love their job or they love the pay, etc. Teachers don't teach because they like the pay. Lawyers don't work 100 hour weeks because they couldn't make ends meet if they only worked 40 hour weeks. In theory I could probably get a job working 20 hours a week, make half what I do now, and still live like a typical middle class household. But I'd have to move to a crappier town and a smaller house and wouldn't be able to vacation for a week at a cabin on a lake, wouldn't be able to buy new tech toys when I wanted to, etc. So I don't do that. If the world suddenly had guaranteed income to give everyone $40k/year per adult, would I just stop working? Probably not.
- insoluble 11y ago
  If the animal instinct of greed shows us anything, we can probably rest assured that no matter what the average quality of life, many people will want more, even if for no reason other than to show off. I imagine there was a time, long ago, when simply having shelter, food, and physical safety was sufficient to be considered successful in life. I have seen people who would be basically satisfied with playing video games all day the rest of their lives. There are others, such as some junkies, who would feel mostly fulfilled as long as they have their fix. Ambition is a curious thing. Although it would seem that most people have ambition, for some people this ambition is directed toward the most useless things. For those who dream bigger, or at least more grounded in reality, there may always be a goal that would drive them to work in one way or another, despite having basic needs met. Like most lines in society, such as where to draw the line between legality and illegality, opinion will differ from person to person. The consensus, or average, will probably shift as a particular quality of life becomes the norm. On another note, part of the drive for gain is based on how one is perceived by his or her peers. If one feels unwanted or unappreciated, he or she is more likely to feel unfulfilled. It could also be said that capitalist consumerism drives this feeling of unease, which may keep pushing the minimum acceptable quality of life further and further. On the other hand, if this feeling can be alleviated, such as through religion, drugs, or virtual reality, then this drive for gain may cease.
- insoluble 11y ago
  To answer your question more directly, perhaps a reasonable place to draw the line would be where all inherently capable individuals have a fair chance at gaining or fulfilling their (reasonable) dreams if they so choose. Government subsidies generally are supposed to exist with the goal of the greater society in mind. Hence, the line must allow persons from poorer backgrounds to get whatever education is necessary in that particular society to have the potential for upward mobility. A caring society would not let health, education, or other barriers of upbringing stop people from working their way up, should they possess the ambition and inherent potential. Naturally, of course, as the education (or knowledge) barrier to entry for employment grows ever higher, there will presumably be a greater proportion of society that is naturally unfit for work. Hopefully technology is able to keep up with the growing load of unemployed persons so that society as a whole can still progress.

dudul 11y ago

"Personally, I feel that if one finds money itself as a goal, then he or she is missing the point of life" And that is exactly the purpose of my question. I don't see having money as a goal in itself but as a mean to acquire resources/services. But some services/resources are considered necessary/mandatory, I was wondering where we draw the line and what would be the point of having money if all basic needs were satisfied.

NateDad 11y ago
All my basic needs are met plus some. That doesn't mean I don't still want a Tesla, a lakehouse, a new deck on my house, landscapers to mow and pull weeds for me, etc. I don't think you're asking what the point of having money is, I think what you're really asking is, if everyone could live comfortably without working, why would anyone work? My reply would be twofold: 1.) Why is it a requirement that everyone work? 2.) There are plenty of people that work a lot harder than they need to, because they love their job or they love the pay, etc. Teachers don't teach because they like the pay. Lawyers don't work 100 hour weeks because they couldn't make ends meet if they only worked 40 hour weeks. In theory I could probably get a job working 20 hours a week, make half what I do now, and still live like a typical middle class household. But I'd have to move to a crappier town and a smaller house and wouldn't be able to vacation for a week at a cabin on a lake, wouldn't be able to buy new tech toys when I wanted to, etc. So I don't do that. If the world suddenly had guaranteed income to give everyone $40k/year per adult, would I just stop working? Probably not.
insoluble 11y ago
If the animal instinct of greed shows us anything, we can probably rest assured that no matter what the average quality of life, many people will want more, even if for no reason other than to show off. I imagine there was a time, long ago, when simply having shelter, food, and physical safety was sufficient to be considered successful in life. I have seen people who would be basically satisfied with playing video games all day the rest of their lives. There are others, such as some junkies, who would feel mostly fulfilled as long as they have their fix. Ambition is a curious thing. Although it would seem that most people have ambition, for some people this ambition is directed toward the most useless things. For those who dream bigger, or at least more grounded in reality, there may always be a goal that would drive them to work in one way or another, despite having basic needs met. Like most lines in society, such as where to draw the line between legality and illegality, opinion will differ from person to person. The consensus, or average, will probably shift as a particular quality of life becomes the norm. On another note, part of the drive for gain is based on how one is perceived by his or her peers. If one feels unwanted or unappreciated, he or she is more likely to feel unfulfilled. It could also be said that capitalist consumerism drives this feeling of unease, which may keep pushing the minimum acceptable quality of life further and further. On the other hand, if this feeling can be alleviated, such as through religion, drugs, or virtual reality, then this drive for gain may cease.
insoluble 11y ago
To answer your question more directly, perhaps a reasonable place to draw the line would be where all inherently capable individuals have a fair chance at gaining or fulfilling their (reasonable) dreams if they so choose. Government subsidies generally are supposed to exist with the goal of the greater society in mind. Hence, the line must allow persons from poorer backgrounds to get whatever education is necessary in that particular society to have the potential for upward mobility. A caring society would not let health, education, or other barriers of upbringing stop people from working their way up, should they possess the ambition and inherent potential. Naturally, of course, as the education (or knowledge) barrier to entry for employment grows ever higher, there will presumably be a greater proportion of society that is naturally unfit for work. Hopefully technology is able to keep up with the growing load of unemployed persons so that society as a whole can still progress.