Old 09-05-12 | 10:08 AM
  #64  
Roody's Avatar
Roody
Sophomoric Member
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,192
Likes: 13
From: Dancing in Lansing
Originally Posted by Mobile 155
And that is why I said, "Understand I am not saying you can't be happier with less but there has to be a balance."

However when the economy requires more to get less then more money has value. And the people that are able to buy what they need and what they want will be happier than just surviving. Because no matter how hard people try to say being poor people can still be happy, (a condition we have been talking about with 20 something students with no credit, no jobs and at the time no prospects), we see people all over the world trying to attain more than they have.

In early America we have what some may call the Pilgram experiment. When the Pilgrams first got here it was decided the people would sare in everything, labor and reward alike. The problem was people would find all kinds of excuses not to work on Mrs, Smith's property when it was her turn. The colony was in danger of collapse. They decided to allow some private ownership and production and wonder of wonders they found that people that were too tired to work for others could work dawn to dusk for themselves. why? Because they could keep what they produced. They could aquire a form of wealth. The rest is as they say history. You can read about it yourself if interested. By the way pretty much the same thing has happened in China when they allowed private interprise and discovered the Chinese citizen will out produce the collective farms at least two to one.

I may not know were the balance is and I realize at some point it turns to the desire for power over others. But I do believe the idea that someone will be happier if they lose ground over what their parents had and could maintain is pretty much wishful thinking. I can't find any example of a great society where people didn't strive for some form of personal wealth to establish comfort and happyness but I will not deny that some sub cultures may have worked on another type of inner peace.

So while your point, more money does NOT mean more happiness It is a lot easier to be happy when you have enough to cover your needs and some of your wants.
I don't think we're disagreeing at all. People are happier when they have security, some "luxuries," and a certain amount of status. OTOH, large lottery prize winners are seen to be less happy than they were before winning, and people who inherit money are not on average happier than people with normal incomes.

As for each generation attaining more than the generation that preceded it, how long will this be sustainable? We probably will need to find another way to measure economic success (and happiness) in the near future.

One more point: if you really want to increase happiness in the world, it's probably more fruitful to work for justice rather than prosperity.
__________________

"Think Outside the Cage"
Roody is offline