What good is money?

[zapatos]

Below is a quote from one of my all-time favorite books, Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. It is basically saying that the Middle Class is where people will most likely find happiness, and is something I have come to believe.

 

He told me... that mine was the middle state, or what might be called the upper station of low life, which he had found, by long experience, was the best state in the world, the most suited to human happiness, not exposed to the miseries and hardships, the labour and sufferings of the mechanic part of mankind, and not embarrassed with the pride, luxury, ambition, and envy of the upper part of mankind.

...and a bit more...

 

“...I should always find, the calamities of life were shared among the upper and lower part of mankind; but that middle station had the fewest disasters, and was not exposed to so many vicissitudes as the higher or lower part of mankind; nay, they were not subjected to so many distempers and uneasinesses either of body or mind, as those were who, by vicious living, luxury, and extravagances on one hand, or by hard labor, want of necessaries, and mean or insufficient diet on the other hand, bring distempers upon themselves by the natural consequences of their way of living; that the middle station of life was calculated for all kind of virtues and all kind of enjoyments; that peace and plenty were the handmaids of a middle fortune; that temperance, moderation, quietness, health, society, all agreeable diversions, and all desirable pleasures, were the blessings attending the middle station of life...”

Edited April 5, 2016 by zapatos

[Ten oz]

Below is a quote from one of my all-time favorite books, Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe. It is basically saying that the Middle Class is where people will most likely find happiness, and is something I have come to believe.

 

I agree with the sentiments but they are more philosophical than they need to be. If one is poor or low on the resources they need/desire they waste a lot of time an energy on that challange. If one is wealthy with over flowing resources they waste a lot of time and energy on managing the excess. The sweet spot is obviously to have just enough of what you need so not to require extra efforts but not so much as to require extra efforts.

[Sirona]

Middle Class is where people will most likely find happiness, and is something I have come to believe.

 

I tend to agree with you, Zapatos. However, the problem in the west is that technology and globalisation are eliminating a lot of jobs, particularly for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, so that the middle class are declining. However, in countries like China and other emerging markets the middle-class population is increasing rapidly.

[Ten oz]

I tend to agree with you, Zapatos. However, the problem in the west is that technology and globalisation are eliminating a lot of jobs, particularly for unskilled and semi-skilled workers, so that the middle class are declining. However, in countries like China and other emerging markets the middle-class population is increasing rapidly.

Technology doesn't eliminate jobs. the invention of the combustible engine and AC power generation displace some types of tasks but ultimately heralded in a new era of jobs. So did micro chips in the 80's and internet in the 90's. There are very few jobs/tasks a person did in 1916 that are still done the same way in 2016. That is not a bad thing or something that has a negative impact on society.

 

Money is a representation of resources that is weighed against value in an often egocentric way. Which is why basic supply and demand doesn't always hold. Everyone needs resources: food, water, shelter, warm, protection, and etc. Most everyone who can will pay for extras like: entertainment, comfort, beauty, convenience, and etc. So the basic market for resources is alway present. Technology changes the deliver, accessability, and capability but doesn't displace those needs. It is the egocentic side of weighing value that most times tips the scales. Somewhere people are being greedy, selfish, and manipulating the system. For example, perhaps a poor one but the one I thought of first, agriculture labor is hardwork that requires experience to be efficient at. Even with technology many crops are still very labor intensive. So one would assume rules of supply and demand would mean ag laborers would make good money. They supply one of the most in demand and most needed resource, food. Do a tough job that takes time to get fast at and is hard to find applicants for. So obviously companies up the wage to entice people to apply and learn.....NOPE! In many countries they still use indentured servants. In the United States we exploit our immigration laws to funnel immigrants into the industry. Rather than following any standard supply and demand model the market is just manipulated. Despite great and obvious value agriculture is egocentrically weighed very low. We need it but simply are unwilling to pay much for it.

[Thorham]

Is it a tool

Yes. It enables us to go to the supermarket to buy stuff without having to take a cow with us and receive chickens as change.

 

or is it destructive?

No. Greed is destructive.

[Sirona]

As always, Ten Oz, you have excellent points. Although machines have been taking over jobs for a few centuries, it does have a short/medium term impact on many people and their quality of life and I was just pointing out that the middle class is growing more rapidly currently in emerging markets. Unskilled/semi-skilled jobs such as that of a truck driver, bus driver and taxi driver for example are jobs that pay relatively well and require little skill and easy to find. However with companies like Uber and Google working towards developing self-driving vehicles for example, a lot of jobs are going to be lost. Although it's true that people have always needed to adapt to changing technologies and generally the changes have been good for society, it does cause a shift in culture and class. In the long term people learn to appreciate that technology has reduced the need for labour intensive work, made things more efficient and improved the quality of life in terms of health and safety too. Self driving vehicles for example are projected to save many lives in the future and road accidents make up the large cause of (in most cases) preventable death. However, we can't discount the amount of jobs that will be lost and the families that will suffer as a result.

[Ten oz]

@ Sirona, I appreciate the response. I think we both agree on a few things. Where we differ on this specifc topic is on the influence on manipulation vs natural growth or decline of an industry.

 

The market collapse in 2009, from which mant indrustries and countries never recovered, was cause purely by market manipulation that would completely avoidable had the gov't not so great greatly deregulated the banking industry. The choices we make matter. How we respond matters. The governement could have allowed GM to fail for example and chose not.

 

Money is a representation of resources and value. While technology alters our ability to use, maintian, and monopolize resources value is subject to choices, manipulation, and the human condition in general. For example look at Africa, very resource rich. Africa has it all titanium, diamonds, gold, lush landscapes from high value crops, and so on yet Africa has been improverished since the day they were introduced the money vs a barter system. Africa has be exploited. They have resources by manipulation has left most countries in Africa without any value.

 

Economies are growing faster in emerging markets. That is not purely a winds of capitalism lift them up. The end of British soverneignty in Hong Kong just came in 1997 (less than 20yrs ago). During the cold war especially China was often manipulated by the west do to our combative view toward communism. China is emerging today in part because they are finally being allowed to. Have you heard how Trump has said he'd deal with China if elected? What impact on their emerging economy do you imagine that might have? India is in a similar position. Only recently have they been treated fairly enough to build there economy.

 

If our leaders wanted to they could invest in jobs programs to build our infastructure: high speed trains, repair roads, upgrade our power system, etc. That is what drove the middle class in the 1950's. Things like Eisenhowers interstate highway system. Instead we choose to spend trillions destorying Iraq and Afghanistan. Billions putting millions of working age men in prison. Technology and changing trends in skilled vs unskilled labor is not the issue. Our choices are the issue.

[CharonY]

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/38/16489.full

 

According to the study above, more money is not associated with more happiness however, less money is correlated with emotional pain. Who would have thought 'balance' was best?

 

I personally wouldn't want to be a struggling student again, worrying constantly about how I'm going to make ends meet week after week. Being a recent graduate I am not on a great income but it's comfortable and I am able to do the things I love. I care about money, but I am not materialistic by any means; I'm a minimalist and spend a small percentage of my income after expenses on consumables but instead on experiences. I believe it's people, shared experiences, hobbies and leisure which make us happy (not factoring in the genetics or health).

I believe when some of you say you don't like money, you're really saying you're not materialistic.

 

A bit of a side note, but it is not quite accurate to state that balance was best as it implies a kind of maximum. Rather, the effect just flattens out. In addition, higher income increases the positive life evaluation, just not happiness. There is also another study that indicates that not only income is relevant, but also how you spend it. I.e. expenditure that satisfies the personality of a spender (e.g. books for introverts) also affects income-related happiness. So in the flat part of the income bracket there may be populations that spend ineffectively to further increase happiness. Of course there will be a reduced return, even if the spending part is optimized.

Best would make sense if taking a cost of increased income into account, though the study implies that stress are actually more correlated with lower income (i.e. the lack of money represents a higher net burden than a high-income job).