money and being happy

[Scanner]

Well, "having to look forward to something" doesn't always have to involve money.

As a guy, I can think of a couple things I look forward to with a fine woman that doesn't involve money. In fact, the illustruous Dr. Oz notes that this kind of free fun should ideally happen 2-3x/week

http://static.oprah.com/download/pdf..._checklist.pdf

(Of course, sometimes this "free fun" translates into a lifetime cost of $250,000 that couples often refer to as a "surprise" )

[Saving_spree]

As long as you know how to maintain a balance, it is all fine.

[lovcom]

Originally Posted by thekid

My parents in law had businesses, worked hard, made much money and spent very little and do not want or covet much material goods or services. They are not very happy people though. They are negative, calculating and very nervous people.

I think the point is that money period (spent or saved) is not a valid way to gain "more happiness". People think so. They are wrong. They are confusing status and ego for happiness.

More money is not bad for happiness, what it is is neutral to slightly positive.

Human values and genetic predisposition are much more important contributors to happiness levels.

Your inlaw's unhappiness must not be tied to their making and saving lots of money. Their problems lie elsewhere, and there is no correlation between their bitterness and their mountain of cash....they are just unhappy folks for reason other then financial.

If you take a normal person of sound mind and body, they can be happier as their savings account grows, provided they don't let their life style increase at the same rate as their savings.

The more money one has, the more options one has, and more options can mean more happiness. Those that are unhappy and rich have other causes of their unhappiness having nothing to do with money, so one should never ues this as 'proof" that more money means less happiness. Another reason some rich people are unhappy is because they lack the imagination to use their money in ways that can make them happy; they fail to see their mountain of gold as a way to options in their life.

[cschin4]

And in the USA, $50,000 is chump changes even for a single person not having the burden of a family, nor mortgage.

I think for a family of 4, life does not provide interesting options until around $150,000.

Then, there must be a lot of unhappy people and families as that is nowhere near the median income for a household of 4.

[lovcom]

Originally Posted by cschin4

And in the USA, $50,000 is chump changes even for a single person not having the burden of a family, nor mortgage.

I think for a family of 4, life does not provide interesting options until around $150,000.

Then, there must be a lot of unhappy people and families as that is nowhere near the median income for a household of 4.

Yes, you are correct...there a hell of a lot of unhappy families subsisting on a lousy $50k per annum...they crank out the babies but can't afford them. Then they let strangers raise the kiddies because they both have to work so that they can pay the $24,000 car payment, which they perceive as a "necessity"....materialism, to be sure.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

To some extent, being happy is a skill. My family was perfectly able to be happy on $50,000 and also on far, far less. And I certainly think we have found interesting options. Take an interest in the world and many opportunities for special things can come about. I agree that more money makes more things possible, but there are still amazing things to do places to visit and people to meet with very little money. One thing we have always had that sometimes people with more money do not have is time. All the money in the world isn't going to buy you a float trip through the Amazon basin if you don't have a few consecutive weeks to paddle your canoe. But my family can do it on $50k and a few free weeks.

I must say I do not care for having an average family income referred to as chump change. That implies that average earners are chumps (losers, gullible stupid people.)

[cschin4]

.there a hell of a lot of unhappy families subsisting on a lousy $50k per annum...they crank out the babies but can't afford them. Then they let strangers raise the kiddies because they both have to work so that they can pay the $24,000 car payment, which they perceive as a "necessity"....materialism, to be sure.


Uh, OK. Why so much hostility?

[lovcom]

Originally Posted by cschin4

.there a hell of a lot of unhappy families subsisting on a lousy $50k per annum...they crank out the babies but can't afford them. Then they let strangers raise the kiddies because they both have to work so that they can pay the $24,000 car payment, which they perceive as a "necessity"....materialism, to be sure.


Uh, OK. Why so much hostility?

Hostility? Where? I've none of that...I'm a lover, not a fighter....

The truth is the truth...don't get mad at me, I'm just a messenger....

[lovcom]

Originally Posted by Joan.of.the.Arch

To some extent, being happy is a skill. My family was perfectly able to be happy on $50,000 and also on far, far less. And I certainly think we have found interesting options. Take an interest in the world and many opportunities for special things can come about. I agree that more money makes more things possible, but there are still amazing things to do places to visit and people to meet with very little money. One thing we have always had that sometimes people with more money do not have is time. All the money in the world isn't going to buy you a float trip through the Amazon basin if you don't have a few consecutive weeks to paddle your canoe. But my family can do it on $50k and a few free weeks.

I must say I do not care for having an average family income referred to as chump change. That implies that average earners are chumps (losers, gullible stupid people.)

Some people want more out of life then average. Life is too short to live a mediocre life. Life should be full of travel, time, experiences, and lots and lots of options; and the very inconvenient truth about this is that it takes money to make this happen.

Life is too short to be average. In the United States there is little excuse for a family to make less then a combined $100,000 per annum.