Ranting again...
This is sparked by deromilly‘s journal, so you’ll need to go read there...
Actually, your (and my) experience lines up with a large amount of research. Apparently while money doesn’t buy happiness, poverty does put the breaks on it.
What does this mean? It means that when we have enough money/goods/resources/farmland/cattle (or however one chooses to define ’wealth’) to ensure that we won’t freeze, starve, and so forth, we can be happy. But it also means that the curve doesn’t continue past that point. Having a bazillion dollars wouldn’t buy me any more happiness than a million, or even a hundred thousand.
I’m sure that if my family had about twice the income we have today, we’d all be a lot happier. If we had ten times as much... well we’d have more options (slightly larger place to live and someone to come clean it for us comes first to mind), but I really don’t think it would make much difference beyond that.
So, as you said, money isn’t the root of evil... greed is. The need to have so much more than you need... and need not just for subsistence but for happiness.
This is, in my opinion, the tragedy of Bush’s economic policy. If you want America to be prosperous, instead of making war on Iraq or Afghanistan, or even the paper tiger of drugs... make sure everyone has what they need... food, a place to live, health-care and a political culture that perceives the work of raising and educating children to be as valuable as being a US Senator.
Instead we have more people unemployed than we did even a year ago, we have cuts to health-care and education for the vast numbers than cannot afford it. Those lucky enough to have a job are fearful of losing it because they know there may not be one available.
I must admit that I was caught off-guard by Bush’s totall callousness toward those without a few million to their names... those of us the Wall Street Journal calls ‘lucky duckies’ because we pay so little of our income in taxes. To be honest, I’d rather pay more in taxes and have some money. I mean, if we made a million dollars a year and got to keep only half of it... well, we’d still have ten times as much as we do now... which would be more money that we’d know what to do with.
If the editors at the WSJ want to trade paychecks with us, so they could be lucky duckies too, well, I’m willing to do it... and I’d feel better, hoping my tax dollars might be going to make someone else’s life a little better.... though I’d probably just be buying bombs...
Actually, your (and my) experience lines up with a large amount of research. Apparently while money doesn’t buy happiness, poverty does put the breaks on it.
What does this mean? It means that when we have enough money/goods/resources/farmland/cattle (or however one chooses to define ’wealth’) to ensure that we won’t freeze, starve, and so forth, we can be happy. But it also means that the curve doesn’t continue past that point. Having a bazillion dollars wouldn’t buy me any more happiness than a million, or even a hundred thousand.
I’m sure that if my family had about twice the income we have today, we’d all be a lot happier. If we had ten times as much... well we’d have more options (slightly larger place to live and someone to come clean it for us comes first to mind), but I really don’t think it would make much difference beyond that.
So, as you said, money isn’t the root of evil... greed is. The need to have so much more than you need... and need not just for subsistence but for happiness.
This is, in my opinion, the tragedy of Bush’s economic policy. If you want America to be prosperous, instead of making war on Iraq or Afghanistan, or even the paper tiger of drugs... make sure everyone has what they need... food, a place to live, health-care and a political culture that perceives the work of raising and educating children to be as valuable as being a US Senator.
Instead we have more people unemployed than we did even a year ago, we have cuts to health-care and education for the vast numbers than cannot afford it. Those lucky enough to have a job are fearful of losing it because they know there may not be one available.
I must admit that I was caught off-guard by Bush’s totall callousness toward those without a few million to their names... those of us the Wall Street Journal calls ‘lucky duckies’ because we pay so little of our income in taxes. To be honest, I’d rather pay more in taxes and have some money. I mean, if we made a million dollars a year and got to keep only half of it... well, we’d still have ten times as much as we do now... which would be more money that we’d know what to do with.
If the editors at the WSJ want to trade paychecks with us, so they could be lucky duckies too, well, I’m willing to do it... and I’d feel better, hoping my tax dollars might be going to make someone else’s life a little better.... though I’d probably just be buying bombs...