Thread: Is making/having money a bad thing on SRP?

Hillie, personally I try to stay away from any evaluation, because
a) my own relationship to having money is kind of weird.
(I saved some, but I always forget that it provides a minimum of certainty for a couple of years and I am still panicked of falling back, so I work and live like a dog)
b) I don't want to be judge whether a problem (of not having a second mercedes) is more important than another problem (like getting homeless), cause everybody seems to have problems of his own kind, just as I do.
Life's circumstances vary a lot and just to compare loosing a house over not being able to pay your rent and having to file for welfare in countries where welfare exists is pretty vague, hence not really constructive and therefore better none of my concern.
c) whatever I say here or however I see things, the only thing I can possibly change is my own life and that is what matters.

When people participate in political threads or discuss matters of a better existence on an internet forum I just hope they also do it elsewhere, like joining a party, being active in initiatives and the like and just use the fora to build an opinion. Otherwise I'd say its not too fruitful.

Originally Posted by freebird

I don't think anyone on the board makes less than I do lol. I haven't noted any divisions between the have and have-nots. I think that most people, no matter how much or little they have, just want to hold onto as much of the green stuff as possible, or at least keep the government from taking it.

In my view there isn't any distinction on the board between so-called haves and have-nots. People appear to be appreciative of each other's creative ideas, whether they're born out of an economic need or not.

Nothing that I've ever read on any thread, including the aformentioned thread about the joys or un-joys of, suddenly, becoming rich, makes me wonder if wealth is frowned uppon by this community. What I see is a community that values hard work over sloppyness and languidity. People here seem to enjoy tough hobbies (and some have them as professions) like wood working, mechanics and so forth. But I don't think that anybody frowns uppon good income and wealth. Plus, if I interpret correctly, a lot of the people that responde to the other thread said that having more money would generaly improve their lives and set them free from responsabilities that we are forced to assume in order to provide for our loved ones. People mentioned debt to banks and mortgages and so forth. Money can set you free and provide you and your own the means to be confortable and, indeed, free to do as you please.
But let me throw in a pebble into this pond: money generates money. If you don't have any, all your ideas will come to naught and you will never leave a state of poverty. If you have some money to invest you will be able to do something with it. Money generates money. Therefore: wealth creates wealth and poverty creates more poverty. This is, as I see it, the idea behind the nobel prize wining idea of the micro-credit.

Please, if you will, go back to the first thread, and define "rich." I challenge anyone on this thread to say they are not "rich."

Go Africa, China, Indonesia, ... . The populace of the third world countries would give a lung and a kidney to have 1/2 of what 99% of the populations of America, Canada, England, Belgium, ... has. We are rich beyond our wildest dreams. We have automobiles, a roof over our head, running CLEAN water in our houses, working sewers, heat in the winter, food available at the corner grocery store, ... .

I don't drive an Aston Martin, I don't have a 10,000 square foot house, my kids don't go to private school, BUT I SURE AS HECK AM RICH when compared to the vast majority of the population of the earth.

You're speaking in relativities. While your point is 100% valid, I don't think it's germane to the original question. We're speaking in terms of the demographic of SRP members.

Sorry to be quoting a post from the first page... but this fits perfectly with one of my favorite expressions...

"Why are rich people so eccentric? Because they can afford to be!"

I certainly like to think I'd never be a total jerk, but I can definitely see myself being much more eccentric had I the means to do so. One of my college friends even told me that "of all people I know I can see you being the most famous for being eccentric".

Money in and of itself is definitely not a bad thing. Misuse of money is... Like someone else said money is a tool with no moral stature. I happen to have this love of "good" stuff... usually I'll save up to buy something of top quality (and buy it once) than settle for something cheap that I'll never be happy with. That said, I have a house mortgage and a car loan right now and don't intend to ever be in any more debt than that.. pay off credit cards every month, etc. Also still give 10%+ to church and try to keep some in savings of various sorts just to keep my head in the right place.

Originally Posted by honedright

Interesting. I was having a discussion with my step-son similar to this just recently. He is convinced that sudden wealth can change a person. I contended that sudden wealth might bring out, or exaggerate, in some, previously unexpressed character traits, but that those traits already exist and that the perceived change is only an apparent one and not a real change of the individual.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

You're speaking in relativities. While your point is 100% valid, I don't think it's germane to the original question. We're speaking in terms of the demographic of SRP members.

Right, SRP members, as a demographic, are rich.

Now for the intra demographic dispute between the "haves" and the "have mores" I don't believe that the ubber rich members on SRP are looked down upon by the simply rich members of SRP. They may have an envious streak, but I don't think they look down on them.

Matt

I haven't read the threads you mentioned. I don't think it's a bad thing to make money. If you do, it is considered poor form to flaunt it though. Because of this I think most people try to "minimize" income so as to appear more humble. This is probably a good thing.

Jordan

Hi Hillie,

And thank you for the most interesting question.
I do not think it is a bad think to make a lot of money. I do not, but i'm not jealous for those who do. I'm sure there are rich jerks, but there are poor jerks too. I try not to judge any person by the weight of his/her wallet, and actually i'm not interested on other peoples finances a bit.

However if making lot of money would be the only purpose to work for then it wouldn't suit at least for me. There must be something more or different too.

I work more with my hands than with my brain, usually. That is ok for me, but not for all. People should seek the job they like and where they have changes to use their abilities, hands or brains, and where they have changes to improve their skills, if they so wish. Of course in the real world it doesn't always go this nice.
No matter what you do, but if you do it well, you are more valuable in your occupation than any high paid rich boss who doesn't take care of his job properly.

Originally Posted by jnich67

I haven't read the threads you mentioned. I don't think it's a bad thing to make money. If you do, it is considered poor form to flaunt it though. Because of this I think most people try to "minimize" income so as to appear more humble. This is probably a good thing.

Jordan

I wonder why it's considered poor taste to flaunt wealth for some (don't get me wrong, I am also socially conditioned to see this as tacky), yet we applaud other forms of open display of talent and wealth.

My statement assumes that the ability to generate large sums of wealth is also a sort of talent or ability. And not everyone seems to be endowed with such talent/ ability.

Take, for example, athletes (professional or Olympic caliber). These people are naturally endowed with certain physical abilities which allow them to excel far beyond the capabilities of the average Joe (or Jane) often leading to large salaried contracts. Yet we tend idolize these people and their enormous incomes. Alex Rodriguez and Michael Phelps come to mind.

But why does it seem that some (?) or many (?) equally and naturally talented business people, industrialists, corporations, etc. are often instead villainised for their success?

Or am I off base here?