"Money isn't everything"

Steer55

Money simple gives your options.

joe40

aristotle25 wrote: »

Money isnt the only important thing, your health\family is more so, but it really is important.

With the money I earn I can fund my kids as they grow up, get educated and start their own adult lives. I can fund myself and my wifes lives until we pass away. And I can help out my parents as they get older and have less income. And I hopefully can leave money to my children when I am gone.

No one can argue against money being importnant but also you can't argue its the most important thing.

The single most important indicator of Health outcomes for a population is socio economic background.
Money isn't everything... but it is certainly extremely important.

sbsquarepants

Wesley Small Hermit wrote: »

The reality of poverty differs from the romanticized myth, of course. But Disney doesn't teach kids about that. It's easy to conclude from popular culture that the absence of wealth is somehow a good thing — when in reality poverty usually leads to people living unfulfilling lives of hardship and struggle.

Poverty absolutely, but there is a huge difference between not "having money" and living in poverty.

There are plenty of people pissing their lives away in pursuit of a higher number on a spreadsheet. It's madness.

There has to be more to life than just accumulating possesions! I'm far from wealthy and i have tons of stuff i don't need and don't use, everyone i know does. Working harder to buy even more useless shít is just a waste of precious time.

We're all going to same place at the end, no amount of money can keep you out of that box!

arah once a person has enough money to get on the internet and take offence at anything anyone says, arent they as rich as anyone else, really

Wanderer78

McCrack wrote:

Would you rather be a miserable lonely bastard with money or without money?

I suspect loneliness doesn't care for wealth, as it cannot keep you company

UI_Paddy

Is money everything? No.

Is money nothing? Also no.

Is money important? Insofar as you need it for essentials (rent, mortgage, bills, groceries, transport, healthcare) yes.

If you are struggling to pay those essentials, you will be unhappy, after that money is only as relevant as you make it. Some people like to travel, some like nice cars, fancy restaurants or a good social life. If you can afford any of those things without compromising on the finances you need to get by while being good to your loved ones and they genuinely make you happy, by all means go for it, but don't spend just because you can or by doing things you are not entirely sure will make you happy. It's at that point you should consider a change in lifestyle or spending habits.

nkl12xtw5goz70

sbsquarepants wrote: »

There has to be more to life than just accumulating possesions! I'm far from wealthy and i have tons of stuff i don't need and don't use, everyone i know does. Working harder to buy even more useless shít is just a waste of precious time.

It's all about balance.

If money really is the only thing someone cares about, that's obviously an issue.

But not caring about money at all, and hiding behind cliches like "money can’t buy happiness" and "your health is your wealth," is also an issue.

Earning a reasonable amount of money and managing it well is a crucial part of a balanced, healthy, and fulfilling life.

mariaalice

A thread like this is really about personality traits not evidence.

An individual with a tendency towards cynicism combined with negative traits/possibly depression nearly always have an iron-clad belief that money will make them happy or that money makes people happy.

It's a coping mechanism.

mariaalice

Wesley Small Hermit wrote: »

It's all about balance.

If money really is the only thing someone cares about, that's obviously an issue.

But not caring about money at all, and hiding behind cliches like "money can’t buy happiness" and "your health is your wealth," is also an issue.

Earning a reasonable amount of money and managing it well is a crucial part of a balanced, healthy, and fulfilling life.

A very poignant article in the Irish Time at Christmas about the hospice in Harolds cross ended with the journalist interviewing a man of 35 with two children dying of cancer and he is quoted as saying your health is your wealth.

mariaalice

A thread like this is really about personality traits not evidence.

An individual with a tendency towards cynicism combined with negative traits/possibly depression nearly always have an iron-clad belief that money will make them happy or that money makes people happy.

It's a coping mechanism.

joe40

Wesley Small Hermit wrote: »

It's all about balance.

If money really is the only thing someone cares about, that's obviously an issue.

But not caring about money at all, and hiding behind cliches like "money can’t buy happiness" and "your health is your wealth," is also an issue.

Earning a reasonable amount of money and managing it well is a crucial part of a balanced, healthy, and fulfilling life.

Absolutely. I think your last sentence sums it up well.

Your health is your wealth, but conversely your wealth can affect your Health.

I don't mean not been able to afford the third holiday this year or the latest smartwatch, I mean grinding poverty where you have to watch your children going without.

lastusername

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Has anyone ever said this who wasn't spoiled, sheltered and wealthy? It's right up there as one of the most irritating comments someone can make and riles me up every time.

The latest time was a friend of a friend saying it in response to our other friend mentioning possibly going for job change this year for more money.

I think most people with a normal IQ get that it isn't literally 'everything', but this phrase seems to come out of the mouth of people who think anyone who is motivated by money is materialistic and shallow. I have never in my entire life heard anyone who has struggled or been poor say anything like 'money isn't everything'.

I think people who grew up wanting for nothing simply can't comprehend how many basic things they take for granted are totally inaccessible to people on very low incomes. When they hear someone talking about 'money', they think in terms of disposable income - money to buy nice new shoes, or an expensive dinner, or a theatre ticket. They don't think in terms of a secure roof over their head, paying the bills or having some savings in case of an emergency.

As someone who grew up very poor and didn't start to make decent money until I was in my thirties, money represents freedom to me. It gives me options I didn't have before. If I'm having a bad time in my shared flat, I can leave and find another one without worrying about how I'm going to find money for deposit and first rent. If I get a sudden worrying stomach pain, I can go straight to the doctor without worrying about how to find the money. If I get an unexpectedly high bill, it's a minor annoyance rather than a major disaster. I see it as a security blanket and so yes, the more money the better, right up to the point where all your essentials are securely covered with savings in the bank and money to spare.

I've met people who say money doesn't matter and it's better to follow your dreams and I think without exception they have all had mammy and daddy funding them in some way and providing a safety net while they mess around doing their art or music or whatever. They scoff at people who choose careers for the money without even thinking that maybe some people really have no backup and nobody who could dig them out if it all went wrong.

What do you think?

I'm sure millions of people who are financially poor have said the very same thing. Would your perception of the phrase change if you heard a poor person say it?

When it comes down to it, money is a 'trading system' for goods and services in the world. If you believe that goods and services can make you happy - as in they are the cause of your happiness - then it'll be all important to you.

Of course we all need to make a living, but if you believe feeling happy and secure ultimately comes from within, then you'll see money as a trading system, and not much else.

If you don't, you'll probably spend your life chasing it when you don't have much of it, and worrying about it when you do have it.

One eyed Jack

Wesley Small Hermit wrote: »

Completely agreed. But from early childhood, we expose kids to fairytales and stories such as Cinderella and A Christmas Carol, which teach them to identify poverty with virtue and wealth with corruption. This enshrines a myth of "noble poverty": Cinderella is virtuous and ethical because poverty lets her see "what really matters" (love, humanity) more clearly than her materialistic step-sisters. Scrooge values only money and can't see that Bob Cratchit is actually wealthier than he in a non-material sense.

We reinforce this myth through numerous TV shows and movies. E.g., In Mary Poppins and The Sound of Music, poorer female characters teach wealthy men how to connect to "what really matters" (warmth, empathy, family).

The reality of poverty differs from the romanticized myth, of course. But Disney doesn't teach kids about that. It's easy to conclude from popular culture that the absence of wealth is somehow a good thing — when in reality poverty usually leads to people living unfulfilling lives of hardship and struggle.

I don’t think anyone was romanticising poverty here at all. The OP has a certain perception of what living in poverty is given her own childhood where she feels she grew up in poverty and grew to see money as a way of providing security. Isn’t that the ending of practically every fairy tale? That they all get to live happily ever after? Disney doesn’t have a copyright on fairytales that have endured for generations.

Just as influential as the myth of noble poverty is the myth of happily ever after, as though if one had just enough money to live on, they would live happily ever after. The idea that money in and of itself would make a person feel secure is nonsense. It’s far more nuanced than that, and saying that money isn’t everything allows for that nuance, as opposed to saying money is everything when you don’t have it and using examples of tv shows which exploit people living in poverty as examples of people living in poverty who are unhappy. I’m not sure whether they were referring to shows like My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding or Benefits Street, but both are curated examples of poverty, edited with the specific purpose of presenting a particular narrative. I don’t think anyone could seriously argue that they are a realistic representation of reality.

In the context of a job promotion, it makes sense to suggest that more money shouldn’t be the only consideration. There are numerous other factors equally worthy of consideration, and that’s the whole point of suggesting that money isn’t everything. It has nothing to do with awareness of people living in poverty or any of the rest of it, it’s simply an acknowledgement that more money doesn’t necessarily correlate with providing more security and overall well being. The idea that it does, is simply romanticising wealth.

pinkyeye

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When you don’t have money, it’s everything. That’s not a common attitude to money, and it’s not all people who don’t have money think about. They have plenty of other things on their minds besides money, and they have plenty more influences in their lives which make them happy. That’s the point behind saying money isn’t everything - because to them, there are things in life which offer greater value and fulfilment than money. One can be happy and content without having a roof over their head, or a car, or having to go to work, and because they don’t have to meet those responsibilities, they aren’t worried about whether or not they have the money to meet those responsibilities. You mentioned in your opening post that money gives you freedom. Being homeless gives you freedom too - no responsibilities.





You can’t because of your own attitude to money. Having more or less money won’t make a person happy or unhappy. It’s their attitude to money will influence whether they are happy or unhappy, so it stands to reason that if you don’t have a lot of money and you think money is everything, you’re bound to be unhappy without it. That’s the whole point of people saying that money isn’t everything, it’s not because they take anything they have for granted, it’s the complete opposite - they value other things besides money.

Ah, go way out of that Jack. I'm torn on the subject of whether money is everything or not but one thing I do know for sure is that no-one without a roof over their head is happy.

There are basic needs that have to be met before one can be happy and shelter and food and two of those. That's a fact, that's not an opinion.

One eyed Jack

pinkyeye wrote: »

Ah, go way out of that Jack. I'm torn on the subject of whether money is everything or not but one thing I do know for sure is that no-one without a roof over their head is happy.

There are basic needs that have to be met before one can be happy and shelter and food and two of those. That's a fact, that's not an opinion.

How many people do you know without a roof over their head? I know and have known plenty. Having or not having a roof over their head was a priority for some that they figured would make them happy, all some others wanted was a lighter.

The basic needs you speak of will depend entirely upon what an individual considers are a basic need for them that they feel would make them happy. For some people that will be food and/or shelter, for others it will be money, for others it will be an acknowledgement of their existence and for someone to remember who they were. The basic needs will depend upon what the individual considers their basic needs if you want to argue about what a person needs to make them happy. The idea that food and shelter are basic needs that must be met before a person can be happy is absolutely a matter of opinion, and not even close to approaching fact.

lainey_d_123

pinkyeye wrote: »

Ah, go way out of that Jack. I'm torn on the subject of whether money is everything or not but one thing I do know for sure is that no-one without a roof over their head is happy.

There are basic needs that have to be met before one can be happy and shelter and food and two of those. That's a fact, that's not an opinion.

Exactly. You'd need to be be a bit touched in the head to repeatedly state that some people are perfectly happy being homeless and hungry and especially not to recognise why women in particular are incredibly vulnerable when homeless.

I've met people who *played* at being homeless who were happy. Couch surfing with mates, busking in the street, but knowing they could always ring up daddy when they were sick of it and get a lend of some money or a free bed. Like the Pulp song.

Someone who is genuinely homeless and penniless being happy? I simply don't believe it. They might know how to make the best of it, but happier than if they had food and shelter? No.

pinkyeye

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How many people do you know without a roof over their head? I know and have known plenty. Having or not having a roof over their head was a priority for some that they figured would make them happy, all some others wanted was a lighter.

The basic needs you speak of will depend entirely upon what an individual considers are a basic need for them that they feel would make them happy. For some people that will be food and/or shelter, for others it will be money, for others it will be an acknowledgement of their existence and for someone to remember who they were. The basic needs will depend upon what the individual considers their basic needs if you want to argue about what a person needs to make them happy. The idea that food and shelter are basic needs that must be met before a person can be happy is absolutely a matter of opinion, and not even close to approaching fact.

I also know plenty and I know for a FACT that none of them are happy.

You are totally bull****ting now. Some people may only want a lighter right now in this minute because they want to have a cigarette or heroin or whatever, that does not mean they are happy.

I'm not even going to go down the psychology route but I think you'll find that there is a hierarchy of needs that have to met before someone can even think about being happy.

Or maybe you consider someone to be happy simply because they're laughing or smiling at this very minute? If you do then you're wrong, fact.

One eyed Jack

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Exactly. You'd need to be be a bit touched in the head to repeatedly state that some people are perfectly happy being homeless and hungry and especially not to recognise why women in particular are incredibly vulnerable when homeless.

I don’t think the people who stated that they were perfectly happy as they were, were touched in the head. They just don’t want to live by yours or indeed my standards. I know plenty of people who were happy to simply be left alone and didn’t want for anything, and they didn’t appear to have any difficulties with their mental health. Again I don’t think it’s a gender based issue as men are equally as vulnerable as women when they are homeless. Children on the other hand are more vulnerable than adults by virtue of the fact that they are children - generally incapable of being self-sufficient.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I've met people who *played* at being homeless who were happy. Couch surfing with mates, busking in the street, but knowing they could always ring up daddy when they were sick of it and get a lend of some money or a free bed. Like the Pulp song.

I’ve known plenty of people like that too, but I assumed you weren’t speaking solely of those people when you spoke of seeing people on tv living in poverty? Given that you’ve also never met anyone who wasn’t spoiled, sheltered and wealthy who said money isn’t everything, I would respectfully suggest you ought to get out more.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Someone who is genuinely homeless and penniless being happy? I simply don't believe it. They might know how to make the best of it, but happier than if they had food and shelter? No.

I’m beginning to realise you were never likely to be convinced otherwise, in spite of plenty of evidence which contradicts your beliefs about other people.

One eyed Jack

pinkyeye wrote: »

I also know plenty and I know for a FACT that none of them are happy.

You are totally bull****ting now. Some people may only want a lighter right now in this minute because they want to have a cigarette or heroin or whatever, that does not mean they are happy.

I'm not even going to go down the psychology route but I think you'll find that there is a hierarchy of needs that have to met before someone can even think about being happy.

Or maybe you consider someone to be happy simply because they're laughing or smiling at this very minute? If you do then you're wrong, fact.

Then you only know people who are unhappy without a roof over their head. That’s clearly not the same thing as your original assertion.

I’m familiar with Maslows hierarchy of needs, it’s a theory based upon an idealised standards of what motivates people, and it’s only one of many competing theories -


Maslow's theory was fully expressed in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality. The hierarchy remains a very popular framework in sociology research, management training and secondary and higher psychology instruction. Maslow's classification hierarchy has been revised over time. The original hierarchy states that a lower level must be completely satisfied and fulfilled before moving onto a higher pursuit. However, today scholars prefer to think of these levels as continuously overlapping each other. This means that the lower levels may take precedence back over the other levels at any point in time.


But you want to do a U-turn now after it was you who went down that route. We can go there, but if you don’t want to, fair enough, but for what it’s worth, no, I don’t just think someone smiling and laughing at that very minute is any indication of their overall well being. I think a persons overall well being is far more nuanced than that, something which your opinion doesn’t allow for when you think your opinions are incontrovertible fact.

mariaalice

Not being able to rely on parents to provide consistency when someone is a child dose have a profound effect on how someone views money.

maccored

as you grow older you realise money really, really isnt everything.

Melania Frump

Money isnt everything but it helps.

stateofflux

maccored wrote: »

as you grow older you realise money really, really isnt everything.

Ive thought about that but usually older people tend to have more security and have more money saved.

I think there is a base level standard of living with disposable income that makes most things easier.

RhubarbCrumble

Money isn't everything, but it's nicer to cry in a BMW than on a bicycle.

Graces7

Not true. Many excellent things cost nothing... With nothing in your purse or without a purse you can walk by the ocean, gathering berries in season.... listen to birdsong and the waves crashing on the shore...

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

If you don't have money you're not going anywhere and you're not doing anything.

Graces7

Best not to be ill of course! But I have serious and incurable health problems and have all I need with very little money. Money could not cure me. Medical card..small pension.. simple basic food. Being almost housebound in a remote place costs little.
Very content with what I have. If I had more I would give it away. Literally.

The basics are essential; a roof, food.... I am not poor although according to the theorists I am, as I have all I need and want.

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

But is it better to be sick and rich or sick and poor?

I have a long term health condition and it's a hell of a lot easier to manage when I can afford to eat well, go to the doctor when I need to and take a taxi rather than 2 buses and a long walk if I'm in pain/fatigue.

Graces7

Odd turn of phrase? What do you mean please?

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I would hate to be at the mercy of a welfare state. It wouldn't make me feel at all secure.

lainey_d_123

Graces7 wrote: »

Not true. Many excellent things cost nothing... With nothing in your purse or without a purse you can walk by the ocean, gathering berries in season.... listen to birdsong and the waves crashing on the shore...

I'm sure you have a roof over your head, which is being paid for, or was paid for at some point.

lainey_d_123

Graces7 wrote: »

Odd turn of phrase? What do you mean please?

You can't guarantee that it will always be there. A future government might slash welfare and make it difficult to impossible to survive on it. I know a lot of people with no skills at all who I consider to be at the mercy of the welfare state. What do they do if it all gets taken away? I would feel very uncomfortable without at least some personal savings, an emergency fund, etc.

maccored

stateofflux wrote: »

Ive thought about that but usually older people tend to have more security and have more money saved.

I think there is a base level standard of living with disposable income that makes most things easier.

I dont, im older and i dont really care about money. I work a job i like going to, to make sure i can pay my bills but after that i much prefer to enjoy everyday life rather than stress about money. Ive found that in emergencies when i need it, money comes in from somewhere - an extra bit of work, bit of overtime ... whatever. Ive rarely ever been caught short, yet i dont have a bank account full of readies either.

I used to stress over money until i realised its just money and not anything real. Theres always ways to earn a few extra euro when its needed. I think the key is to figure out *if* its actually really needed in the first place