|
||||||
|
Socrates Exchange: What is the Relationship between Money, Happiness, and a Good Life?
By Laura Knoy on Monday, October 27, 2008.
In our next installment of The Socrates Exchange we're asking the question: “What is the relationship between money, happiness, and a good life?” Our culture may often tell us the personal wealth equals success, but most of us are suspicious of this. What really is the relationship between money, happiness, and a good life? If money isn't essential for happiness, why are we concerned with poverty? Is money, as some say, the root of all evil?
Guest
- Nick Smith, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of New Hampshire, Advisor to the Socratic Society at UNH and Project Advisor to the Socrates Exchange
We'll also hear from
- Father Jerome Day, a Benedictine Priest, professor of English at St. Anselm College and pastor of St. Raphael the Archangel Parish in Manchester
- Sue Macoo, of Capital Craftsman and Romance Jewelers in Concord
- Kirke Olsen, psychologist and owner of The Positivity Company
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Twittercomments
All comments are moderated before appearing on the site. Comments must adhere to the NHPR.org comment guidelines and terms of use.
I'm really looking forward to the conversation on this, our next Socrates Exchange question. We want to know what you think? What is the Relationship between Money, Happiness and a Good Life? Does money breed happiness? If so, why are there so many unhappy rich people? I've read a study once that some lottery winners become more depressed after hitting the "big one". If money has no relation to happiness then why have we recently been so "stressed out" about our financial futures with all that's happened with the economic crisis? When you have the burden of barely making the bills and fear of some economic mishap, doesn't that make you a more unhappy person? I know for me money in the pocket makes life easier for me... When I hear this question I think about an old quote "I've been rich and I've been poor... rich is better". What do you think? Get Socratic on us!
Money does correlate with happiness and a good life, but only if you spend it correctly. We can talk about John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Standard Oil and the richest man to ever live. On his deathbed, he described his life as "one long happy holiday." Perhaps this is because he earned his huge fortune by the sweat of his brow. But then there are those who made 200 million dollars from the lottery, and ended up as broken derelicts two years later.
That being said, money is no requirement to live a happy life. Money is merely an indirect means of attaining things, which indirectly can bring happiness. Happiness requires different things for different people, but friendship, accomplishment, and self-grace are high on the list of most.
If you believe Rockefeller earned his fortune by the sweat of his brow, you are very sadly misinformed. He earned the biggest portions of his empire by engaging in some of the vilest and underhanded business practices ever invented. He busted unions, and exploited workers to increase his profits. He drove other companies out of business, ruining the lives of the business owners and the people who worked for them. He hired Pinkerton "detectives" [scabs] to bust the heads and worse of folks trying to organize for decent wages and working conditions.
The reason his life was a "happy vacation" is because he used the power of his fortune to impose his every will on everyone around him - much like an unruly teen-ager would if he could.
Since money is the means by which most of our vital needs are met, this is important. Money is only as useful, or as desirable as what it attains (i.e. food, cars, warmth, etc.). But beyond essential needs, the element of desirability enters the picture when money attains things that are beyond needs. And there is that in-born nature in humanity that more is always better. Food feeds you, but more food feeds your friends which keeps your friends. This is where the happiness comes in, because money is related directly to how a single person may be involved with the much larger picture of human social behavior. We are, after all, social human beings at our core.
I disagree with your statement. It sounds like your saying that you must be able to give material things to your friends, or they won't be friends with you anymore. I'm pretty sure I don't have to feed my friends in order to keep their friendship. Money is important, but I don't think it is vital in friendships or social activities. If someone doesn't like you because you don't have money, they are being ridiculous and shallow.
I agree with you Becca. I don't really think that I need to feed you for you to be my friend and I disagree with what Deanna is saying. Maybe to her money is how she makes friends because she can't get any other friends but I get friends the old fashioned way. Money is essiental for what you need and/or want but not to make/get friends.
First of all you are not reading this statement correctly because this person is simply saying that money is in fact not as great of a factor in life as the nature of a human being. This person is saying that it is vital to our "needs", not our friendships, and this has nothing to do with giving away materialistic items for people to be your friend.
I completely agree with what you are saying. It is also like the idea that people have that they need money so that people will accept them. It's pretty much the world we live in though. It's a world where 99% of the time you need money to do anything. For example, if something makes you happy, you will most likely need money to keep doing it, or pursue it as a career. What I am trying to say is that in this world, money is most of the time a necessity, even though it really shouldn't be.
This is a very complex topic that a one sentence query belies. So I’ll simply proffer the following for reaction if one is so inclined.
To nitpick the title of this forum, a more concise and, perhaps, more constructive question would have been: What is the relationship between money and our psychological state? The partitioning and categorizing of our emotions followed by the singling out of one is unnecessary. Clearly, if money influences happiness then it influences sadness, anger and worthiness as well.
Technically speaking, money can/could never be the root of all evil simply because it is purely symbolic and transitional, as it is a store of wealth in which something earned/acquired is temporarily housed until it is transformed once again into something, typically “things” and services.
So the question here, briefly assuming that there is something that is the root of all evil, should be: What can money afford oneself that is the root of all evil? My short answer: gobs of power. Reason: Too much power leads to self-delusion in the form of distorted perceptions regarding one’s intelligence, decision-making ability and value to the community/world. Mild, humble, uninfluential people never kill millions (or thousands or hundreds for that matter).
Mr. Riemer, I would like to respectfully offer a possible correction. Whether or not there has been someone who specifically has said that "money is the root of all evil" I do not know. I do know that while many people have heard this, it would be an incorrect quote from the bible.
The original statement is focusing on the love of money and not money itself. In 1 Timothy 6:10, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils... (taken from the English Standard Version, ESV).
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts more specifically to the question that they have posed. Do you see a relationship between money, happiness, and a good life?
I do believe that in bringing this point up to Mr. Reimer and the rest of us does, in fact, draw attention back to a very important point that Mr. Reimer made himself earlier in his post; that a vital aspect of how our lives are affected by money (and the things it provdes), stems from the affect that it has on our phyche and how we perceive ourselves in relationship to others around us. I found a very resourceful article at http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/2006/08/01/8382... that discussed how universities are studying how happiness relates directly to what we possess in relation to another or others. I encourage all to check it out! This is definitely one of the oldest questions of mankind.
J. Alan McCay,
In the spirit of respecting the guidelines of our moderators, here’s a distillation of what I wrote in response to your post.
I didn’t introduce the “root of all evil” theme but was only responding to it as it appeared in one of the sub-questions in the heading for this forum. However, I’m glad I now know its source and the additional nuance the original presents. In fact, that nuance is an entire other thread in and of itself.
As far as responding to the main question more specifically, that’s what I was beginning to address in my first post: I think the word “happiness” should be replaced by (or expanded to include, if you’d like) “psychological state” or some similar and suitable substitution that is more inclusive of our many emotions and reflective of our total selves than just “happiness.”
As for “the good life” part of the original question, that’s for another post, so let’s get rid of it for now.
The question is then transformed: What is the relationship between money and our psychological state?
But before really getting into it, perhaps we should make one last conceptual adjustment. That money is a transient representative of things it is not. Since our consumer economy is money-based, money then is representative of any and everything it can buy. It not only pays for yachts and Hummers but for utility bills, food, clothing, and riding the bus. So it provides for us – because of how we’ve structured our monetary system – both the fundamental necessities of life as well as the grand, frivolous and superfluous.
This spurs two further modifications/evolutions of the original question:
What is the relationship between the fundamental necessities of life and our psychological state?
What is the relationship between having a lot of material “things” and our psychological state?
I realize I haven’t actually begun “answering” the question yet, but this is just how my mind initially works when approaching the ideas posed.
I agree with J when he states that the statement is mostly pertaining to the love of money rather the object of money.
I believe that money has some tie with happiness but one does not need money to be happy. For example, if someone is in debt and cannot pay for anything they aren't a "happy camper."
I think that happiness and a good life are very close in relation though. I believe that you cannot have a good life if your are not happy. If you are surrounded by the people that care about you then you are most likely to be happy and enjoy life.
A good life may involve money or security. The people that have money know that they will have money when they need it and be stress free. The people without money are fretting and do not have time to enjoy a good life because they are worrying about money.
The title was brade so people could give wide examples. And anyways people who are 'humble' or 'uninfluential' can kill millions. Some people who have power or money may abuse it but lots of them help the world.
Hi Matthew:
Are you certain that happiness is only a psychological state? Is it merely a biochemical condition in the mind? If so, are those who use antidepressants to manage their psychological conditions really happy? Does it make sense to talk about "artificial" vs. "natural" happiness?
You have a point about happiness. Maybe it is just a state of mind, and maybe it's something else. This brings up the intriguing question: What is happiness? Is it real? Or is it an illusion? Does happiness really exist?
It seems to me that when I reflect on my own experiences and those times when I have enjoyed "happiness" or "the good life", those feelings have resulted from either some sort of achievement, or some type of interpersonal connection with someone or something. The happiest day of my life was the day I married my wife, and we started out nearly broke. Money seems to enter the equation only fleetingly, if at all.
Hey Matthew! What is your definition of power? I ask, because, in terms of "influence," how would we speak about someone like Ghandi, Bill and Linda Gates, Barack Obama? Does all power corrupt, and if not, what qualities do we want the 'powerful' among us, in terms of influence or leadership, to possess and why? What is it that makes us look toward leaders or to want to become a leader in society? If the preferred state is is one that is humble and uninfluential, should we even have leaders? What would that society look like?
Can a leader (someone with 'power') be a hard working and passionate Director of a children's home who uniquely solves problems and if so, should they be rewarded for their work -- ie the resources needed for food, shelter, warm clothing? Does it not take a level of courage to stand up and elect to be a leader and what would make us need or want to do that? Can this person hope to be embraced by their society or is that showy? Can a non-profit leader have a kind of influence on the direction of her people and if so, should we call that person uninfluential because we worry about corruption? How does humility, as you mentioned, fit in to a leadership role? Does influence always involve corruption of some kind or can someone like Martin Luther King Jr. be 'powerful' in the sense that he had an inspirational influence on many? Why would we want someone to stand up and influence society like that? How should this person expect to make a living? What safe gaurds should we think about for leadership roles to stave off the concerns you have about power and corruption while allowing leadership roles to flourish if at all?
Hi. I am a journalist and participated in the Socrates Exchange at River Run Books In Portsmouth.
1) I define happiness as a long-lasting mood directly correlated to the succession of good decisions made over time. happiness and freedom "grow," in a biological sense, with challenges, over time.
2) For the most part of history, people's investments were sunk into things they were intimately connected with, such as farms, land and personal businesses. But now through stocks and debt instruments, people can invest into things with no personal connection or real knowledge. If the wealth generated through these vehicles is decoupled from the investments of time and labor, and creativity, I wonder if it can be at all satisfying? (it leaves further questions on whether decoupled investments as a force of pressure on productivity might be alienating to those who actually do the manual and intellectual work).
Thanks for calling in, Jim. So let's hash out the question. Is happiness really just a "mood," emotion, or mental state? If it is just some chemical reaction in our brain, why do we think it is so important? Why do we build our lives around this vague "feeling"?
Nick, I think there is no question happiness is correlated to biological processes. I am a non-dualist, but very much assured that happiness is a function of work; and in so much that it is, we can can play a role in regulating our moods, creating new pathways and new neurons to transform our mental states. happiness is not only a state, but a dynamic process, i say.
The affect of money on life has been understood since Aristotle. Aristotle believed that external goods were necessary for the soul to flourish, and the flourishing of the soul was Aristotle's definition of happiness. Today money is still thought to be life enhancing, but referencing Aristotle again, it may be necessary for people to avoid excess money, as a person ought to live a life that avoids excess and deficiency. This is why we regard the poor and the rich; they are outside of the mean and are in turn not practicing a virtuous life.
On a completely different note, the excess of money has occurred in places that allegedly advocate a meritocracy, such as America. The main issue is that money dictates a person’s merit and worth. As a college student if my worth were to be assessed I would have a substantial negative worth. It can’t be the case that I have negative worth, undeniably there is something intrinsically valuable about the self. However, within the system we live in, where the accumulation of money is analogous to one’s merit and worth, I am obliged to say that I am less than worthless.
Justin, what I hear you saying by your statement about not being in the mean but rather at one of the extremes; too rich or too poor, "you are not practicing a virtuous life," sounds like you are attaching a moral value to money. While there are indeed moral dangers associated with being at one end or the other of the wealth continuum, I disagree. If, as others have said, money is merely a tool or a commodity, how we use the money we have, no matter how much or how little, is what is moral or immoral. How we use our resources says volumes about what is in our hearts. It is more a quantifying of what we attach value to than it is the value attached to us.
My use of Aristotle was aimed at getting someone to question the necessity of excess wealth. Why is excess wealth needed when there is a deficiency of wealth found all over the world. When I used the term of living a virtuous life in terms of the acquisition of money, Aristotle would have no issue with that as long as it was not done on one of the two extremes. Money and wealth is used for a person to flourish, a person without money cannot flourish properly as another person with money can. Understanding that virtue for Aristotle is the flourishing of one's soul, it would follows that the acquisition of money is necessary for a virtuous life.
I'm sorry, but, I have to sharply disagree with you -- and not necessarily based on some virtuous or non-virtuous notion of money and self-worth. I just had to say, having been raised below the poverty line by a single dad who made 24,000 a year with three kids -- I have been exposed, my whole life to people of all spectrums of income. It's been my experience that the among the poor you will find some of the kindest, most giving people; people so richly and starkly in tune with the feelings and holistic well-being of the people around them. They notice things, they are sentimental, they worry together. They can pick up on your feelings, they offer to give things they can't afford to give. Not to discredit anyone's kindness if you are middle class or above; but is all this whining about self-worth based on money a tad narcissistic?
My poor friends don't try to impress me with weird stuff like dishwashers, fancy toys, table cloths or purposely displayed belongings. They don't try to irk others or make their friends feel less worthy or jealous with their money.
Life is not easy for these people, but they can make me laugh about the human condition like no other because they harbor few illusions about their "self worth" based on what they own. They are down to earth and are happy when they have enough of the basics -- their insights, their kindness, their struggles are so deeply human and touching that I find it a tremendous and empty insult to base a person's self-worth on how many pieces of paper one has in their wallet.
I was raised with very little -- and let me stress this point to you. I had my first apartment by the time I was seventeen because my dad was tragically poor raising three kids alone. I finished my senior year of high school while working full time and paying rent. I never had cool clothes or even, really enough clothes growing up. Food was scarce and life was lean. I eventually put myself through college and had to work the whole time and it was hard. The reason why I tell you this is because my experiences never had to do with some judgment about my "self-worth" or financial status. With this kind of niave freedom, I traveled, wrote, took pictures, met wonderful people and now, amazingly and weirdly, I am friends with one of the most famous poets in the country, am almost done with a novel and work at an amazing business in town that spends most of its profits for non-profit causes. None of this came with a cost greater than the passion I put into it. And, the fact is, it's the friends I grew up with when we were poor (and some still are very much so) that I turn to when I need advice because in their voice, I can tell they support my life with a kind of mischievous joy and they don't treat me with a degrading competitiveness based on some weird sense of “status” or self-worth based on money.
We use money as a unit of measurement so that we have a universal system that dignifies the work we do and rewards us socially with the things we need to thrive. But, to value your life based only on the money you have or the things you own and to spend your life worshipping money is really just a way of saying that you are made to feel like you must somehow to be "better" than others. But, better? What does that mean, really?
I think that coupled with the manic drive toward “worth acquisition” is this stark fear that the only way a person can be memorable, influential, make history, become noteworthy or make a contribution to society is if they are "worth something."
I would urge that on some important levels that we be weary of this desire to mix self worth with money....Life's a struggle, but, if you spend your money on a big television -- the only thing you will be left with is a bunch of commercials urging you to buy more stuff to make you feel better about your self worth.
By no means am I advocating a life based on materialism. I am simply commenting on the social structure in which we live. I think it would be naive for a person to deny that American society is materialistic, and that people with money have a higher self worth than the poor. I am highlighting the problem with this, as there is something to be said about one's character that money cannot encompass. However, one's character and beliefs are not factored into the American materialist conception of self worth.
I come from a very similar background as you, in fact shockingly similar. However, I am laced within a system that will not allow me to travel, take pictures, or meet poets. I have thought about getting away and traveling, but because I entered a system where in order to 'succeed' one has to sell bits of their life away in order to gain some sort of self worth I am to remain in one place.
My original comment was meant to start discussion on the ideals of American meritocracy, and how it is not merit that dictates one's worth anymore it is money. I am not advocating the purchasing of large televisions or fancy cars to show off to my friends, as I could never do that. I am however advocating the necessity of developing one's self in such a way that they understand it is not what one has that dictates their worth but who they are.
Right, I agree with you Justin. I was confused by your comment about succumbing to this notion that you are required to call yourself worth-less but I see now that you meant that with irony. Even still, how often do people become broken enough that that is what happens to them?
You nailed it: we are in a social/polical system that takes away a person's freedom to self-actualize because of the tremendous disparity of wealth in our country (inflation, stagnant pay wages, ideas of elitism) and I sympathize with you on that, greatly. While things have gone well for me these past few years, it has never been easy economically. So, I apologize for being on the defense. I hope that people who are struggling feel they have the right to pursue the kind of life they want even when our economic system attempts to dampen our freedom or passions and replace it with mindless jobs that pay eight bucks and hour -- is what I mean. Can we shake out of that?
What are the answers to modifying the system that we live in so that more people have time and energy to work on the things that matter for us collectively (the environment, social causes, the elderly, the sick) and for their own individual lives? This is the challenge that we can motivate ourselves and our children to work on.
Ahem...go Obama. ;)
Money isn't necessary for a good life. While it is useful and it helps payfor things, I really don't think we need it.
I disagree with what you are saying. I think we do need money to buy things. I think there is a point which we take money for granted and if you just use it to buy the essiental things then there is no problem. If you didn't have money then how are you going to buy a house, food, clothing or living essentials?
I disagree that money is a need. There are ways to live without money. How do you think people survived before money was invented? Clearly, living without money is possible.
Society did exist without money for a time, but there were other ways to show wealth. For example crops to trade, land to own, children, or even slaves. People would barter, and this bartering system required assigning wealth to objects, which is the same thing we do to money. In the case of money we are universally assigning an amount to a piece of paper or metal whereas pre money we assigned wealth based on the need of the object. I don't think the world has existed without some sort of way to designate the worth of an object, which unfortunately in turn ends up being the wealth of the person.
why do you need those things at all?
We need all these things to have a good life and to be successfull. what if we didn't have them then our world would be blah. We are furthering our world and making it better. Like that other guy wealth is not only money its what you have or your posessions.
Without money the world would be unbalanced. People need a reason to work and without money there usually is no reason. Would a teenager work at McDonalds if he knew he wasn't going to get payed? I doubt it. Money creates happiness in a way. If there was no money only the physically strong or popular would get what they really wanted. Now that there is money people have a purpose to invent and experiment, on the chance they will get money for their work. No matter what a person wants, if he/she gets what it wants it will be happy momentarily and money helps get what a person wants. Personally, I can not say I would try as hard in school if I thought there was no real reason. I try because I want to go to a good college so I can make a lot of money someday.
I think money is more important than you give it credit for, but for the most part I agree with you. While money can't always bring happiness, it's also hard to be cheery when your living on the street. With no money, you can't establish a good life for you or your family (if you have one) therefore you won't be happy. so to kind of reiterate what you said, you don't need to be rich to be happy.
Xake,
I think money is a necessity for a "good life". Money is what allows you to live the way you want to. You need money to have food, clothes, and shelter. Happiness is just a feeling, and the majority of people fulfill this feeling with exterior items. Therefore, money is a necessity for a “good life.”
Money is the odd ball for this question because I believe that you can have happiness and the "good life" without money to fuel it. For me some of the happiest times are when I am out in the out doors or with family and friends. That does not require money to enjoy. So money has no real connection to happiness and the "good life".
Money is said to be evil, and I believe it is. Money does not bring happiness, but it does bring stress to those who never seem to have enough of it.
Success often supplies money and happiness, but they are not the same. Money can buy many things, but it cannot buy happiness or anything else of importance. I believe that money can actually cause misery or an empty feeling.
Money will come and go, be earned and spent, but happiness can last. There are so many things out there that cost money, but happiness is priceless.
I think that this really depends on the person, because everybody has different values and views on life. For me, the concept of happiness and money sometimes walk hand in hand, but not always. Sometimes we should just accept and want the materialistic things we have instead of wanting what we don't have. Money can't buy everything, and if one is too focused on the idea of having money they might miss out on the priceless moments of life.
I have to say that I don't have a strong opinion on this matter only because I think all views will depend on the person. Happiness is something that you find yourself, in whatever interests you. If money is what a person invests their time and effort in, and eventually reaches the goal of having large amounts of it, who is in the place to tell them that they aren't really happy. People create their own happiness in what matters to them. If relationships are more important than money in a persons life, then they will invest in that and the outcome should be happiness. What I want to know is who is in charge of the definition of happiness besides ourselves?
In today's society, it is seen a necessity to have money. But, does it really lead to happiness? Sure, you can buy things, not specifying any necessities in life, but other things. Money can't buy happiness, though some may think so. I don;t see there being a strong relationship between money and happiness, but a stronger relationship between happiness and success. If someone succeeds at something, they are more likely to be happy then if they failed. Some optimists may see the failure as a good try, but they just need to try harder. Knowing your own strengths and weaknesses and where you may need to improve, if you take the right steps to improve it, you could be happier. True, some success leads to money, and that could make you happy, but its only fleeting. Money runs out eventually, and you it shouldn't be a number one priority to get money, for it doesn't last.
As the Beatles once so profoundly said "Cant buy me love" . Money does not lead to a happiness, however it can lead to a good life (in a material way). Money can buy you things that are used to insure security; food, clothing shelter, etc. These things define a good life, being safe. Consequently a good life does not mean a happy life. Money can only but you short lived, "fake" happiness, however much i love shoes they do not me me a happy person, just a well dressed one. I think that Jimmy Choo shoes would make me happy, but that happiness will only last a few minutes, then it fades. Family, friends, love and chocolate make you happy. Besides chocolate money can buy none of these things. Money can buy security and thus a good life, but only love (of family friends etc.) can get you happiness.
I have to disagree with most of what you are saying. Money factors into the family life and thus changes social interactions. This being the case, I am only open to meet people based on my economic status. How can I fall in love or start a family with someone that I never could have met because of my economic status? Money dictates where people will go in their lives, and the ease in which they can meet their personal goals. A person of a poor economic status may have fallen in love with someone she had never met, but this is unknowable. Money is the key to society and status and status is the key to social interaction. Without social interaction there is no love, so money can buy you love!
For me, money is what shows just how true the phrase "everything in moderation" is. If you have enough money to support the life you want to lead, money is fending off unhappiness rather than actually buying happiness. If you have too much money it either gets in the way of your chosen lifestyle or can cause you to abandon a path that wasn't paved with gold but was still perfectly satisfying.
I think it's naive to view money as intrinsically evil. It's a useful way of sorting and placing a value on goods, abilities, and services, and, when the system is working properly, it's the most efficient way of ensuring that people are able to acquire the things they need in their daily lives.
For me the good life means my family can make choices that are important to us. We can work in jobs we are proud of, we can spend our money on items that we believe in. We have been in The Peace Corps and we are public sector employees. But now that I am staying home with two small children our life is an uphill battle. Since health care and college savings require so much money our daily lives are choices between printer cartridges and free range meat. Between ski lessons for our kids and 529 contributions. Between a dental visit for my husband and a bag of groceries for the local soup kitchen. We are middle class people with two masters degrees and trying to raise kids with one parent at home is very very hard. When do you tell the kid we can't afford those lessons? We don't need fancy things but we do need medicines and physical therapy and savings. Why can't our government help with these things? Why can't our government give stay at home parents stipends like many European countries do? Why can't I accrue social security for my job as a parent? Happiness for us would be less financial stress so we can fund the basics in our life.
Money can bring happiness and a good life, but large amounts aren't required. While everyone needs enough money for basic needs you can't receive other forms of happiness from money such as the enjoyment of being with your friends.
Today some people are spending there lives in school in order to obtain that high salary job they picture will lead to happiness. However are these years of schooling worth the salary they will receive after paying all the loans off? Personally I think not, I would much rather have a job with a decent salary and one that I'm happy to go to everyday.
In truth it's the simplest things in life that make us truly happy, whether we realize it or not. When I think back to the happiest times in my life they don't involve very much money. Backpacking in the woods for the week over the summer made me feel the most alive and happiest I have been in along time. I was away from the real world where people go to work to make money, to pay the bills, feed the kids, and buy the latest trends in order to fit in. Without these things that are obtained through money I noticed the beauties of nature and the love of friends more deeply.
So yes money is required for basic needs but in order to truly be happy you need more.
Another cliché, overly-disputed question. Maybe that just means it's important. In any case, yes. Money cannot buy happiness. I think most of us believe this to one degree or another. However, what CAN money buy? Food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education. What we consider to be basically essentials. These elements undisputedly make life more bearable at the least.
I think it's very difficult to be both happy and stressed at the same time. Of course, one can be a generally happy person, but just be stressed for a day or so. However, I think in one instance, a person cannot feel both emotions. To multiply our instances of happiness, we must decrease those of stress. (This also applies to other negative emotions, but stress encompasses and is a part of many of those.) People can define a "good life" differently, but I think without happiness, or at least contentment (yes, I think they are different), a life cannot be truly called "good."
When you have money, you devote less stress to covering the essentials, and you can spend on decreasing that stress even more. I think that as long as you keep in mind that money must be combined with other elements - good relationships, self-esteem, health, etc - happiness and money can certainly intertwine. Of course, this issue could be examined much more closely, but this is the basic way I connect money, happiness, and a good life. Honestly, I think if you understand it internally and have a good balance of it in your life, you don't need other people to understand it. If it works for you, why try to convince everyone else?
Despite our culture's constant display of the wealthys' fabulous lives there is generally that underlying message that money doesn't equal happiness. But, I have to disagree with part of that. I think that it's fully possible for money to buy you a (temporary) form of happiness. E.g. If someone were to get a very new expensive item (house, car, computer, etc.) I'm sure that they would be very happy. For awhile. But once the bills started coming in and they actually had to pay for it (assuming that their pockets are not bottomless) they'd probably be stressed. But the happiness of actually owning that item is connected to money. But long-lasting "true" happiness is something I believe money can't buy. You can't put a price on the word's "I love you", they are (as Mastercard would say) "priceless".
As far as having a good life's concerned, I think that you need to be happy to have a good life. It's not good if you're miserable. Like I all ready established, money can really help give you temporary happiness but only up to a certain point. And if you start spending money that you don't have in order to obtain that good life full of happiness that you so desire eventually you'll wind up without any happiness or money and with nothing even resembling a good life. (Credit card debt is not too fun). But if you save and spend wisely and don't forsake the important relationships in your life for the sake of making overtime, etc. than I think you'll have a very good life indeed.
Ben Young
Money, Happiness, and a Good Life.
Money, happiness, and a good life are intertwined, but the level of their relationship can vary depending on who you ask. My personal belief is that you don’t need a lot of money to be happy and have a good life, but having money can bring material things into your life that can make you happy. I believe that most people need some money to be happy. People don’t need millions, they only need enough to satisfy basic needs; food, drink, shelter, warmth. Even then we don’t need money, we could live off the land, but many people wouldn’t be ok with that lifestyle. Because of our highly materialistic society we are taught to believe that those with more money live better lives, and are therefore “happy.” The poor and non-wealthy are looked down on because they don’t posses the materials that the rich and powerful do, and man has a desire for power. Those who have millions to spend on luxury items may be very happy and lead good lives (in their eyes), but it is also very possible that they are miserable and lonely. This is contrasted in stating the possibility that poor people can be very happy and live a good life (in their eyes0, but it is also possible that they are miserable and lonely as well. The answer to the question always depends on who you ask. I believe that money isn’t the root of all evil, but rather that human greed and desire for power is the root of all evil. Humans created money to feed their desires and greed. Money is just the embodiment of our selfishness, and we have learned to love it and hate it, but no matter what it will always be there.
“The person who said that money doesn’t buy happiness was obviously poor. Money buys a Waverunner! Have you ever seen a sad person riding a Waverunner!?”- Daniel Tosh (comedian)
Having enough money so that having a roof over one's head and food in one's belly (and especially when providing those for others such as family members or friends) can relieve a lot of stress for many people.
Can it buy happiness? No, but it can certainly help provide an atmosphere where happiness is easier to achieve. True happiness comes from within a person -- there are poor people who are happy, there are poor people who are depressed, there are poor people who just manage to get by. The same can be said for wealthy people. But true happiness is easier to develop when one isn't watching one's children go to bed hungry while sleeping in a car or a homeless shelter.