4
   

If Everybody Was Wealthy, Then Who Really Is?

 
 
Sturgis
 
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2020 09:48 pm
This has played around with me for several years. Maybe since birth. Is there any reason for people to believe that an entire planet filled with wealthy folks would actually be better than a mix of weqlthy, abject poverty, getting by, doing okay, living nicely, living slightly high on the hog....?

This was brought up again this evening when watching a documentary about the "Great" Depression and the period of time just prior. John Jacob Raskob, who was involved with politics and DuPont, General Motors and building of The Empire State Building, had said that "Everyone ought to be rich". He wrote that for The Ladies Home Journal in August 1929, shortly before the stock market crash.



All thoughts and feelings, along with ideas and reasoning is welcomed.
 
View best answer, chosen by Sturgis
CalamityJane
  Selected Answer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Sep, 2020 10:48 pm
@Sturgis,
Wealth is relative - the Mexican gardener considers himself wealthy because he can buy a house. Warren Buffet feels he's doing okay because he lives frugal. Everybody IS wealthy to a certain degree of what they consider "rich". When does wealth start? Would you consider millionaires wealthy? Would they?

If everyone had 1 million Dollars today, would they remain millionaires tomorrow? Some would invest it wisely, others would lose it all in no time. Should they be given another million to make them wealthy again?

I tell you what I would like to see: every person should get a basic amount of money, let's say $1000/month to either supplement their income or just to buy food and not get hungry. I'd be happy about that and gladly pay an additional amount in taxes for it.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  0  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2020 06:21 am
@Sturgis,
I suppose you could consider it in terms of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. If everyone had the bottom two then I think we could say everyone is "rich enough" and have a spectrum of wealth over that.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs2.svg/300px-Maslow%27s_Hierarchy_of_Needs2.svg.png
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2020 08:19 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:


This has played around with me for several years. Maybe since birth. Is there any reason for people to believe that an entire planet filled with wealthy folks would actually be better than a mix of weqlthy, abject poverty, getting by, doing okay, living nicely, living slightly high on the hog....?

This was brought up again this evening when watching a documentary about the "Great" Depression and the period of time just prior. John Jacob Raskob, who was involved with politics and DuPont, General Motors and building of The Empire State Building, had said that "Everyone ought to be rich". He wrote that for The Ladies Home Journal in August 1929, shortly before the stock market crash.



All thoughts and feelings, along with ideas and reasoning is welcomed.


I acknowledge this is all an aside, but:

In my opinion, "being rich" has to do with contentment...not with wealth.

I do think EVERYONE should have sufficient for a reasonably comfortable life. And then, the people who work should be able to have more.

BUT no one should have less than sufficient for a reasonably comfortable life.

(Reasonably comfortable life: Enough food, clothing, shelter, education opportunity, healthcare, ability to communicate, ability to get from place to place, and a bit of entertainment.)
0 Replies
 
justaguy2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2020 08:41 am
@Sturgis,
It's an interesting question... personally, if I've got food in the cupboard, a roof over my head (particularly on a building sitting on top of a foundation rather than on four wheels), and at least some entertainment, then I don't tend to even look at my bank balance unless I want to buy something. I know exactly what it's like to be "homeless", and have lived on four wheels before, and it isn't fun.

It also really depends on how far you want to dive into "modern consumerism". I personally don't care if my phone, desktop PC, etc isn't the "very latest tech", as long as it does what I need/want it to do, then I don't feel the need to "get the latest" just to "keep up with the joneses". My self-esteem isn't and doesn't ride on what everybody else has or thinks, and personally, it's just silly "to have the latest for the sake of having the latest". I honestly can't understand what the point in that is, beyond someone else and not me making yet more money from me. So you could say I look at the utility something has to offer, rather than whatever psychological gain there might be from it. I don't personally value mere possessions beyond their utility.

All of that said, I think a "universal basic income" will become a reality at some point for most, if not, all western countries at some point in the future.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2020 09:01 am
@justaguy2,
justaguy2 wrote:


It's an interesting question... personally, if I've got food in the cupboard, a roof over my head (particularly on a building sitting on top of a foundation rather than on four wheels), and at least some entertainment, then I don't tend to even look at my bank balance unless I want to buy something. I know exactly what it's like to be "homeless", and have lived on four wheels before, and it isn't fun.

It also really depends on how far you want to dive into "modern consumerism". I personally don't care if my phone, desktop PC, etc isn't the "very latest tech", as long as it does what I need/want it to do, then I don't feel the need to "get the latest" just to "keep up with the joneses". My self-esteem isn't and doesn't ride on what everybody else has or thinks, and personally, it's just silly "to have the latest for the sake of having the latest". I honestly can't understand what the point in that is, beyond someone else and not me making yet more money from me. So you could say I look at the utility something has to offer, rather than whatever psychological gain there might be from it. I don't personally value mere possessions beyond their utility.

All of that said, I think a "universal basic income" will become a reality at some point for most, if not, all western countries at some point in the future.


Agree with everything you said.

And I hope that last part comes soon. I won't see it, but my guess is there are many people alive right now who will!
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  3  
Reply Tue 29 Sep, 2020 02:56 pm
Interesting. All of it.

Part of my difficulty I suspect comes from a strange disconnect with greed.

This is not to say that money is not at all appealing or that I at times would not object to having more. It has just never attached to my state of mind (happy, not so happy, downright miserable). It really is a roof over the head, a basic meal and awareness of being. Again, maybe I
would like something else or more occasionally, it just doesn't meld together with financial excess.


justaguy2
 
  2  
Reply Wed 30 Sep, 2020 08:01 am
@Sturgis,
That's pretty much my position too, and you put it very well indeed Sturgis.

And I also agree with you too Frank Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » If Everybody Was Wealthy, Then Who Really Is?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2021 at 05:11:58