Reefs.org Forums

[Wazzel]

Ghoti,
Interestingly enough - "Love and Belonging" (Social) is above this need. So while people here have said, "family makes them happy", "Love and belonging" does NOT take precedent over financial needs - according to Maslow.

Could be that the money to live is in layers one and two and is the money level needed to survive. The money to get luxury items would be in layer 4 (esteem). Level 5 is once you realize that even tho money plays a part of your life there is more to living than money.

[wings]

I haven't read the entire - now 35 pages- thread, but I'm wondering if anyone mentioned Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

If no one has, it might be in one's best interest to perhaps check it out. I think that in order to be happy, certain criteria must be met. I do believe that money has a role to play in that criteria. Does that fulfill the entire criteria of happiness? Probably not, but I don't think it is entirely absent either.

Interesting idea, wings. Money is not mentioned in the criteria. I think this is telling because while money is undoubtedly interconnected with a good deal of the criteria, it isn't actually the criteria. This is the center of my disagreement with Salty. Money is secondary or incidental to the actual causes of happiness.

Well, money isn't listed in the official Maslow's hierarchy, but it could be argued as a subset of one of the criteria - particularly under "safety" main heading/employment/resources subset. So it would be the second level, which is fairly low, imo.

Once we came off a barter-based society, money is pretty integral to that level. The fact that it isn't mentioned directly supports the idea that it is only incidental.

Incidental sounds a wee bit "fractional"...It could very well be more than just "incidental". It also might be a large part of why divorce happens in this country...but that's a whole 'nother discussion.

[wings]

Ghoti,
Interestingly enough - "Love and Belonging" (Social) is above this need. So while people here have said, "family makes them happy", "Love and belonging" does NOT take precedent over financial needs - according to Maslow.

Could be that the money to live is in layers one and two and is the money level needed to survive. The money to get luxury items would be in layer 4 (esteem). Level 5 is once you realize that even tho money plays a part of your life there is more to living than money.

I'd disagree with that. I would agree that the "safety" foundation could be extended somewhat to incorporate the other items. It could be possible that people misplace "money" to make up for another aspect of the hierarchy, which inevitably fails in the long run.

[budhaboy]

I cannot HONESTLY say yes or no, as I have no experience with a higher salary

You've made the same amount of money your whole life???

generally increasing one's salary is resultant in more responsibilities, and greater amounts of stress in one form or another.

Jesus............why do you guys all have to weigh yourself down with this straw man anchor???

Do I dream of winning the lottery one day? Yes.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!


People usually dream of things that make them happy


Buying things for others BTW is probably one of the best examples of how money brings happiness to many people at once. Christmas at our house is about as much fun as humanly possible.

I'm not going to debate the more money for half the work because that is in no way close to reality.
with the amount of responsiblity and stress, both at home and at work, that I have now, no, I have no experience with a higher salary. I've made less at other jobs, but I had less responsibilities, and alot less stress too...and in actuality, I made a bit more than I do now working as a Roadie - and I certainly wasnt happier - living out of a suitcase, not having a real home, being on the road for months(some tours lasted more than 6 months) at a time puts a real drag on your social life - not being there for great events in my friends and families lives kinda sucked - so I got out, rented a room from someone, got a crappy low paying job till I could get my foot in the door, career wise.
Right now, I've been debating going for a full Federal ride(better job security, better benies) - right now I'm a civillian contractor - similar job, but at the Federal Pay grade that my salary is equivalent to, I would have to take nearly $10K in pay cuts initially(when employed with the Federal Gov't you start at the entry point of your equivalent pay grade, I'm presently at the high end of my equiv. pay grade). It'd be much less stress, as I wouldnt have to worry about losing my contract and being unemployed, and after 9-12 months I'd likely be returned to my original salary...is this feasible for me? I dont want to take the pay cut, but it'd be less stress...best I can give your question of "would I be happier making less money?" is "maybe"

I'm sure yet again you'll read far more into my statements, but that IS your modus ponens.

[ghoti]

Ghoti,
Interestingly enough - "Love and Belonging" (Social) is above this need. So while people here have said, "family makes them happy", "Love and belonging" does NOT take precedent over financial needs - according to Maslow.

I hope you don't get the idea that I am saying money is unnecessary. I daresay modern society would be impossible without it, as it stands now.

Happiness, fulfillment, contentment -- these things all might remain elusive even after all the basic "needs" are met.

[fishtanker]

Oh oh, it's Hail Mary time. We're trying to derail the thread into an interesting conversation.

[wings]

Ghoti,
Interestingly enough - "Love and Belonging" (Social) is above this need. So while people here have said, "family makes them happy", "Love and belonging" does NOT take precedent over financial needs - according to Maslow.

I hope you don't get the idea that I am saying money is unnecessary. I daresay modern society would be impossible without it, as it stands now.

Happiness, fulfillment, contentment -- these things all might remain elusive even after all the basic "needs" are met.

I think we're in agreement. I guess your word choice of "incidental" made it seems less than necessary. Maslow's paper was from the 1940's, right? So, they're coming out of the great depression .: bartering could have totally been "in play" still.

[Louey]

Doesn't anyone think they are winning or will eventually win this debate?

[ghoti]

I guess your word choice of "incidental" made it seems less than necessary.

What I meant was that correlation does not imply causation. It is likely that having money, having all one's needs met and being happy can all be correlated. But correlation does not imply causation. I tend to suspect that there are other factors that tend to cause a person to have more money and make them happy.

It is an important distinction because I think bad things can happen when one starts to believe that money is the seminal origin of the happiness.

[Salty Dog]

I am their father because I am their father not because I thought about it.

You said they will remember you for being their dad...............but before you said you have never thought about it.

How can both be true??

Sure you said it.

Show me.

It's just a fact - no thought needed.

It's a fact no quote needed.

So you can't prove you're not full of **** and just making stuff up to further your point??


Got it

When I "selective quote"= bad

When other people misquote me = funny


Thanks once again for proving my point

[ghoti]

Doesn't anyone think they are winning or will eventually win this debate?

I'm getting something out of this but I don't hold any illusions that I am changing anybody's mind.

[Salty Dog]

Ghoti,
Interestingly enough - "Love and Belonging" (Social) is above this need. So while people here have said, "family makes them happy", "Love and belonging" does NOT take precedent over financial needs - according to Maslow.

Could be that the money to live is in layers one and two and is the money level needed to survive. The money to get luxury items would be in layer 4 (esteem). Level 5 is once you realize that even tho money plays a part of your life there is more to living than money.

Wow Waz...........could you think up any more straw men while you're at it???


Has anyone said there isn't more to living than money???


If you're going to base your counter points on stuff no one actually said it's kind of hard to have a reasonable debate.............you and Andy could chat for quite a while though I bet.




Answers to questions no one asked.

[Salty Dog]

I'm not going to debate the more money for half the work because that is in no way close to reality.

Sorry.........I've already proven in one of my professions it IS reality.

Just because you think it will never happen to you doesn't mean it never happens


I'm sure yet again you'll read far more into my statements[/quote]


How much can you read into "maybe"??..........you didn't really say anything

For whatever reason you guys have to associate more money with more stress and heartache..............that makes me laugh. I live about as stress free a life as possible...........I have a bunch of responsibilities sure but so does everyone...........welcome to being an adult.



You said you dream of winning the lottery right??..............so you would gladly take in a bunch of money for no more added work or time on your part??

[fishtanker]

Doesn't anyone think they are winning or will eventually win this debate?

This is just Mental Masturbation for Dummies.

[Wazzel]

I am their father because I am their father not because I thought about it.

You said they will remember you for being their dad...............but before you said you have never thought about it.

How can both be true??

Sure you said it.

Show me.

It's just a fact - no thought needed.

It's a fact no quote needed.

So you can't prove you're not full of **** and just making stuff up to further your point??


Got it

When I "selective quote"= bad

When other people misquote me = funny


Thanks once again for proving my point

Actually I was laughing at the point that you are know for NOT providing any data to back up you points and you stand here accusing someone of doing the same.

[Wazzel]

Ghoti,
Interestingly enough - "Love and Belonging" (Social) is above this need. So while people here have said, "family makes them happy", "Love and belonging" does NOT take precedent over financial needs - according to Maslow.

Could be that the money to live is in layers one and two and is the money level needed to survive. The money to get luxury items would be in layer 4 (esteem). Level 5 is once you realize that even tho money plays a part of your life there is more to living than money.

Wow Waz...........could you think up any more straw men while you're at it???


Has anyone said there isn't more to living than money???


If you're going to base your counter points on stuff no one actually said it's kind of hard to have a reasonable debate.............you and Andy could chat for quite a while though I bet.




Answers to questions no one asked.

You provide no answers to questions directly asked.

[Wazzel]

Doesn't anyone think they are winning or will eventually win this debate?

There is a debate going on? I just want Salty to admit to what he has been implying to for the past however many post but backs away from it when it is shoved in his face.

[Salty Dog]

I am their father because I am their father not because I thought about it.

You said they will remember you for being their dad...............but before you said you have never thought about it.

How can both be true??

Sure you said it.

Show me.

It's just a fact - no thought needed.

It's a fact no quote needed.

So you can't prove you're not full of **** and just making stuff up to further your point??


Got it

When I "selective quote"= bad

When other people misquote me = funny


Thanks once again for proving my point

Actually I was laughing at the point that you are know for NOT providing any data to back up you points and you stand here accusing someone of doing the same.

When attribute a comment to someone else I quote them.............always.

[wings]

I guess your word choice of "incidental" made it seems less than necessary.

What I meant was that correlation does not imply causation. It is likely that having money, having all one's needs met and being happy can all be correlated. But correlation does not imply causation. I tend to suspect that there are other factors that tend to cause a person to have more money and make them happy.

It is an important distinction because I think bad things can happen when one starts to believe that money is the seminal origin of the happiness.

Ahh gotcha.

[Salty Dog]

Doesn't anyone think they are winning or will eventually win this debate?

There is a debate going on? I just want Salty to admit to what he has been implying to for the past however many post but backs away from it when it is shoved in his face.

You want me to admit to something I never said???





You have thrown up so many straw men in this thread you can't tell them from reality any more.