RSS Feeds
Facebook
GRS Twitter
This is a guest post from Bob at ChristianPF.com. Bob writes about personal finance from a Christian perspective.
John D. Rockefeller founded the Standard Oil company in 1870. He was the first American billionaire and one of the richest men to ever live. I am sure many people today wish they could have walked in his shoes. If, somehow they could, I think some would find it to be eye-opening.
Are you richer than John D. Rockefeller?
As wealthy as he was, Rockefeller might have had anything that money could buy. But what a few hundred dollars may buy today, couldn’t be bought with millions 150 years ago.
Today, we have central heating and air conditioning, cars, planes, Tempur-Pedic mattresses, iPods, and millions of other gadgets. Even Rockefeller in his day couldn’t buy air conditioning. Maybe he had fifteen people fanning him on a hot summer’s day (because he could afford it), but I would rather have air conditioning. He probably had chauffeurs to take him by horse and buggy all around town, but I would much rather be riding in a ten-year-old Chevy. Wouldn’t you?
If we change the way we think of “wealth” and compare our standard of living to Rockefeller’s, we’re doing pretty good. In fact, I would go as far to say the majority of Americans live an all-around more “comfortable” life than Rockefeller did. Who then, is actually richer?
How much do we really need to be happy?
If your household annual income is over $50,000, then you are in the top 1% richest in the world. (See for yourself at the Global Rich List.) And if we can agree that most of us are living a more comfortable life than a billionaire at the turn of the Twentieth Century, then shouldn’t we be happy with what we have?
Should the fact that someone is living a more comfortable life than we are make us less comfortable? Or couldn’t we be satisfied knowing that we live a more comfortable life than 99% of the world’s population, or the richest man 150 years ago?
And maybe we aren’t complaining — maybe we are just using our credit cards instead. Do we really need all the junk we are buying or are we forgetting how good we actually have it?
Why not keep up with the Joneses?
What’s the point with all this? Why spend energy trying to be grateful for the things we have? Why not just try to keep up with the Joneses? Here are a few reasons:
- Life is far more enjoyable when you are grateful. Grateful people divert their energy to seeing the good things they’ve been given rather than focusing on what they don’t have. This alone makes them much happier and far more enjoyable to be around.
- You can save a lot of money. When you are thankful that you have a car rather than having to ride the bus everyday, it makes it a lot easier to break the habit of buying a new car every year. This can apply to anything — HDTV is great, but so is color TV. Remember when that was the new break-through technology?
- Forgetting about the Joneses can set you free. Doing things to impress and appease other people is a dangerous trap. So many people voluntarily become “puppets” to those they are trying to impress — trading control of their lives for temporary social approval. Having been enslaved by it for years, I suggest forgetting about what the Joneses think. They’re overrated anyway.
- You can actually enjoy the things you have. Everything loses a bit of its appeal as we get used to it. From a new pair of shoes, a new car, a spouse, or anything else — they are all really exciting while we are anticipating them. But, once we have them for a while, they just aren’t as exciting as they once were. By truly appreciating it and focusing on the benefits of it rather than the “greener grass” elsewhere we can truly enjoy what we have.
I don’t say all this to suggest that we all should live like we are hovering around the poverty line. I merely want to suggest that maybe, just maybe, we have it a little bit better than we think. Regardless of whether you have 60″ HDTV and new BMW or a 19″ Sanyo and a 10 year old Chevy — be grateful. Either way, Rockefeller would be jealous.
“It’s not having what you want, It’s wanting what you’ve got.” — Sheryl Crow
This article is about Basics, Odds and Ends, Psychology Sunday, 1st June 2008 (by J.D. Roth)
June 1st, 2008 at 4:19 am
People should aspire to live happy rather than wealthy lives, because with this kind of thinking they could more easily achieve their goals in life, and most importantly be happy.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:13 am
I think this is a great article! We do need to stop comparing ourselves to others and be grateful for what we have.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:09 am
I like this post a lot. Really liked the stat on $50000 per year putting you in the top 1 percent of the world. How’s that for some perspective?
I just started a personal PF blog about the Joneses (http://forgetthejoneses.wordpress.com/) and breaking out of that keeping up appearances mentality, because I know that falling prey to it hasn’t brought me anything but grief.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:26 am
really puts things in perspective, I used to ride the bus for a very long time before I got my vehicle.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:37 am
I really dislike the way these sorts of articles force you to compare apples with oranges. Yes, it’s more convenient to travel by car than by horse, but automobile culture has proliferated to the point where the minimum standard for mobility requires a car (plus gas, insurance, repairs…) in most of the US. Yes, we have technological luxuries that people couldn’t have imagined a hundred years ago, but Rockefeller’s society was built around the technologies it had, and our society is built around the technologies we have. (For example, when we didn’t have air conditioning it was a lot more common to have a summer home in the mountains.)
Also, let me just say that I feel like these kinds of articles are ways to placate the working class / lower middle class and attempt to convince us that we should be all happy and sunshine and flowers despite rising costs for food, gas, and health care and income inequality that’s as bad as it was during Rockefeller’s day.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:04 am
Why should I try to keep up with the Joneses? Why can’t I *be* the Joneses?
June 1st, 2008 at 7:51 am
# 4 about keeping up with the joneses is my Everything loses a bit of its appeal as we get used to it. From a new pair of shoes, a new car, a spouse, or anything else - OR SPOUSE!!!
June 1st, 2008 at 7:55 am
In fact, I would go as far to say the majority of Americans live an all-around more “comfortable” life than Rockefeller did. Who then, is actually richer?
Rockefeller. Because he was in control of his life. There’s too much “material-comforts=wealth” thinking in the world. How ’bout “independence=wealth”?
June 1st, 2008 at 8:09 am
Keeping up with the Joneses is so last year. This year, modern people keep up with the Jameses
I did look up to my peer group when I was in high school and university, but over the years I’ve developed my own tastes. I run my own small company and decide what I want and need. Thank you for posting this article JD, indeed gratitude is an important quality to develop and behold.
The Global Rich List is sobering indeed. Each of us has a hand in our fates, when it comes to running our own finances - but when I read the bylines and countries of residence of the posters here, I see that each of us here has won the birth lottery by being born in the richest countries in the world. Each of us here has the very basics of life (including internet!) whereas in many third world countries clean water, electricity, and basic communications are very hard to come by.
As for being rich and feeling rich, the quote by Charles Dickens sums it best: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery” I know seemingly rich people who live a lavish lifestyle yet are drowning in debt, and I know retirees living on a monthly pension of $3,000 who save money every month. That is also a matter of perspective.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Anyone else notice that $2 annual income on there still puts you ahead of 1/5 people?
June 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Beautiful article! I don’t think it is apples to oranges either - Rockefeller was human wasn’t he - wouldn’t he have enjoyed what we have. I don’t think this proliferates lower class either it demonstrates being happy. Those that want to go on to make mountains of money still will and we need those kinds of people. But there are statistics that show wealthy MBA stars drowning in debt just a few short years after their career ended because they did not have the ability to be grateful for what they have. This article also demonstrates that we who chose careers less financially rewarding (teachers, social workers, police) are still rich and should be grateful for what we have. I think it gave me great perspective because I LOVE my A/C and will take that any day over a house in the mountains… Thanks J.D. this was a great article and gave me great perspective. I love my career choice but keeping up with the Joneses has been a challenge for me.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Hmm. I am one of those people who ride the bus everyday because I can’t afford a car. I don’t have any debt, but I’m aged in the upper 50s and had to take whatever job I could get in order to have health insurance.
Well, at least I serve the purpose of having a lifestyle my friends can be thankful not to have!
Actually, I’m thankful for quite a bit. My excellent health, for example. My apartment is very small, but I can pay for the rent and I am in a beautiful neighborhood that is near a laundromat and a food store.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
Chiming in to say I also enjoyed this article.
The first thing that came to mind after reading it is that this is the sort of mindset I’ve been trying (with very limited success) to encourage in my preschooler.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
I like this post a lot! Always important to remember to count your blessings. Makes for a happier and more content soul!
June 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
I remember two quotes:
“I am as weathy as Rockefeller because I have everything I want.”
Thoreau: “A man is wealthy to the extent that he has the fewest needs.”
[Both probably paraphrases, but I think of them often.]
June 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Emily H - well thought out. i enjoy your point of view.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
@Emily H
“the minimum standard for mobility requires a car (plus gas, insurance, repairs…) in most of the US.”
This was kind of my point in writing this, most of the US does have it pretty well, but a lot of the rest of the world would gladly take a lot of things that are well below our “minimum standards”.
I do agree with your point about the societies being shaped based on the technology available, but it only goes so far. My goal in writing was just to encourage (myself mostly) to be thankful for what I have.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
i’d kill for a $3000 monthly pension… i wouldn’t know what to do with half of it except save it!
at any rate, the recent troubles in my life have led me to be grateful for what i have and cut myself off from the materialist “friends” i once had.
that last part is what made a big difference in my perspective. i talked to one of them just the other day and couldn’t help but feel sorry for her and be annoyed at the same time.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
thanks for this JD.. i’ve had the new car itch lately.. and this just reminds me that i have everything i need right now.. i am thankful for what i have already
no need to go back into debt just for a new car.. i’ll wait until it is really necessary
June 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Money, like good health, is desirable; but is not the object of life”
I don’t remember where I read it but it has always come to my mind every time I start to become a little stressed about my money
June 1st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Ahhh, the miracle of free-market capitalism!
And to think, there are those among us who think that it’s a bad thing!
June 1st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
There was a feeling of emptiness fifteen minutes ago, it sprang from boredom enhanced by loneliness fueled by the desire to be out spending income that doesn’t exist. I googled “obtain wealth” for obvious reasons. I clicked on the link which led me here and I read the posting then followed to the comments. In those 15 minutes I smiled, laughed and was calmed. I scanned my living room and saw the walls of my confinement or small apartment. The walls had openings in them, doors some people call them, and past those openings I knew there to be beds, bathtubs, and running water (cold AND hot!). The openings I speak of, after being comforted from YOUR comments, are gateways to simple pleasures a great number of people do not possess. I have few needs, thank you for the reminder.
Happy once more
Joseph
June 1st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Great post and very true!
I have also been thinking about what was brought up in the post. These are things that many Americans don’t realize. If you really want to reflect on American wealth/happiness vs. what exists in other countries I would recommend the movies City of God and Manufactured Landscapes. The book Jupiter’s Travels by Ted Simon also drives home this point and is a great read. These really put things in perspective.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Rockefeller did have it better than us(average person on the net) because he had the world at his fingertips. To imply we have it better than him is like comparing apples to oranges. IMO
June 1st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Totally agree with the Sheryl Crow quote at the end of your post.
“It’s not having what you want, It’s wanting what you’ve got.”
One of my favorites about “satisfaction” (even though I disagree with about everything else SC stands for.)
June 1st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Articles of this nature seem to be written by people who have never actually known a “Rockefeller” or a “Trump” and don’t seem to understand what makes them tick anyway. The morals that are drawn from them are so tangental to what they were.
Thx jegan
June 1st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
“Rockefeller did have it better than us(average person on the net) because he had the world at his fingertips. To imply we have it better than him is like comparing apples to oranges. IMO”
Hardly. When I go to the Doctor I now have access to technologies that Rockefeller never dreamed of. If I save even a little bit ($1500) I can travel, literally, around the world in 1.5 days. Rockefeller indeed had certain portions of the world at his fingertips–the point is, however, that wealth has dramatically flowed “downward.” And, an extended point of this point is that we (US citizens) are amongst the richest people in the history of the world! As a US citizen I can look forward to the direct and indirect benefits of technology that I can only dream about.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:38 pm
I like this post. And why does it say, “from a Christian perspective”, when the principles are universal? This applies to everyone, of every (or no) creed, religion, or belief. A real eye-opener that I couldn’t agree with more.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Also, another thought: I’m from India, where often some wealthier families that could afford more, don’t, so that they can save for their great great grandchildren, who in turn splurge when they are young, and when they are older save for theirs… but in any case, those who choose to save live to a much lower standard of living than the average American by choice, but are often much happier. Why? Because they are grateful that their life is better than their parents, and relish the opportunity of living a life that, while well below their means, is more than enough to keep them happy - they’re grateful that their lives are better than those of their ancestors, and that is more than enough for them. Also, the poor, while in the far minority, are much more, uh, visible in India than in other countries (hence the unfair labeling as a second or third world country, which is not true at all if you actually do the comparison) so they have a visible reminder of what to be grateful for, and many do charity work or donate, recognizing that there are many more unfortunate than they are.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Of course, there is a growing number of Indians who choose NOT to live below their means and, well, splurge like crazy, including some who make it to America *cough* myself *cough*
June 1st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
freedom for me was ditching my car in favor of a bicycle. Even if it took-literally- 5 - 7 more minutes to get somewhere, the ride is far more enjoyable.
It’s a LOT more enjoyable now that I know that I’m not burning gasoline and very- VERY- small amounts of petroleum products (a tire tube every few months and the plastic and shipping fuel that goes into some of the products).
For me, freedom comes knowing that I can use the power of my body to get me somewhere or accomplish something.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Great post. That also reminds me of something else I once heard: that we can get a $20 bottle of wine that is better than anything King Louis XIV could ever have drank.
I think those commenters who have said that it is like comparing apples to oranges are missing the point. The whole point is to make this apples to oranges comparison and see that you have (except maybe relative to one’s peers) much more than Rockefeller could ever have had.
Here’s a list I can think of:
Air conditioning, better medicines and antibiotics, fresh fruits and vegetables all year long, ethnic foods of all types, information at your fingertips, movies and TV, unprecedented mobility, and electricity.
I think the issue that some have raised is that Rockefeller could have anything he wanted, while many of us see things we want, but can’t have. That, however, doesn’t diminish the fact that we have access to so much more, and even if we can’t have it all, we have many more and better things than he did.
June 1st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
If this blog did nothing more than publish advice like “Be happy with what you have before you buy more stuff,” it would already be a net positive before even advising further.
One of the happiest things I’ve done lately is go through closets and such and discover things I own that I have not recently enjoyed. Books I always meant to read, DVDs still in their shrinkwrap as-yet-unwatched, etc.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 am
India is a poor country. Its a fact.
Intreastingly the further you go from the country, the richer it seems to become. I have a people in the US who think India is the richest country in the world.
There are many places in the country where the only way to get internet is via a wireless mobile phone. Plus other places have intermittent electricity. Intreastingly cell phones work almost all over the country, but landlines dont.
Some places do not even have that(no electricity and no wireless coverage either). There is an email “Bus”(actually passenger bus with a small wireless transciever running off a thumb drive on the roof and regular fare paying passengers inside) that comes along every 2 days and recieves the email “wirelessly” from a ‘communal’ computer. Then the bus goes to a city, connects to the internet and then forwards the email. How sad is that? Plus if you miss the bus, then you cant send email for the day.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:28 am
I’m not so jazzed by this article. On one had you say that Rockefeller wasn’t so rich since he wasn’t afforded the conveniences we take for granted 100 years later, yet we should be happy with color TV (from the 1960’s) since it’s good enough.
That aside, there’s no reason that this same article couldn’t be written 100 years ago or 100 years from now.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 am
Hmm — not a fan of this article.
We’re supposed to feel richer than Rockefeller because we have air conditioning and ipods, and can fly to Europe in a few hours, but he didn’t? I don’t think so.
Those things don’t make us “richer.” Rockefeller enjoyed a standard of wealth beyond what most of us know. For his times, if he wanted it he pretty much could have it. And he lived surrounded with a luxury that we really don’t.
If Rockefeller wanted to he could travel to Europe at the drop of a hat. Who cares if he was going by transatlantic oceanliner? In fact, that seems like a richer option to me — since he’d be travelling at the height of luxury, and even moreso since he’d have a completely different conception of time. Even if you are flying first class these days, flying is nowhere near the experience it was when you had several days of catered luxury at your beck and call on board a ship. Rockefeller travelled in style, we simply herd ourselves like cattle onto a plane and rush around.
And as for ipods — I have a theory that the reason modern music is so awful today is because it’s become so easy to get access to it. Back in the day when you had to have access to live musicians, music HAD to be beautiful and aesthetically pleasing since it was a luxury item. Now, music is cheap and available anywhere, and the sort of music being made is vulgar and ugly comparatively. I’d rather listen to music the way Rockefeller did — live — a much higher quality of experience. I think ipods have diminished our quality of life.
As for air conditioning — well, yes that’s nice. Of course, we’ve also completely lost any sense of designing buildings to maximize natural cooling flows of air. I bet Rockefeller’s home took much better advantage of existing knowledge about how to build a building that could use air flows to stay comfortable. It’s called being smart about building design rather than forcing high energy-cost technology into it.
Of course, it’s not just Rockefeller. I recall being both in my maternal grandmother’s house built in 1905 in rural Colorado to poor people, and my paternal grandmother’s house built in the 1930s in rural Mississippi during the blazing hot summers. And in both, when you opened the doors and windows and let the air flow through, it really made a difference in the comfort levels of the house.
My grandparents on both sides had very little compared to all the “wealth” of today, and yet I swear they had a lot more than we did. They both had extended families close by to help them through hard times and celebrate in good times. They were close-knit in a way we aren’t today - heck, I live isolated from my entire family and have no reliable social network to speak of.
Even though they were poor, they always had access to a local doctor which really isn’t guaranteed today, and it was a lot less expensive to see him. I have health insurance, but my deductible is so high I don’t dare use it. Not to mention that every time I have broken down and used it, the care is unsatisfactory and ridiculously expensive. And overuse of antibiotics is breeding superviruses.
And as for constant access to fruits and vegetables — good grief. They GREW their own fruits and vegetables, and canned it so they did have year-round access to it. Or got it locally grown. And they got the benefit of very fresh fruits and vegetables. What is available in the stores today doesn’t even begin to compare.
If I had my choice, I think I’d rather prefer to live in Rockefeller’s day.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:42 am
Oh — and as for unprecedented mobility — between 1900 and 1910, just one set of my great-grandparents and their children lived in the following places: two different cities in Italy (Palermo and Milan), New York City, three different towns in southern Colorado (Trinidad, Hezron and Walsenburg), and Chicago. They were mobile.
They also went from having access to nothing but walking or trains to having animals for transportation to having their own truck all within the years between 1900 and 1920. The truck wasn’t a luxury vehicle — by then they were established as a major grocery in their area and they used the truck for deliveries. The way grocery stores worked back then was that people could send a note or phone in an order to the grocery store, and the grocer would package up your order and deliver it to your door. Hmm — sounds like a convenience I’d like to have.
They were not wealthy, but they were working their way into the American dream. It was hard work, but they achieved it with far less “advantage” than my generation had.
I resent attempts to belittle what they had in an effort to make our present conditions seem so much better. It shows ignorance of the past.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 am
It’s nice to be happy to some extent with what you have. But you also need to keep looking to the future. The emphasis should shift from wanting something because you think it’s needed to keep up with some imagined norm versus wanting something because it brings good value to your life.
In other words, define your goals and pursue them, rather than have others define them for you.
Also, I’ve always felt that if you become perfectly content with everything you have or have done, there would be a tendancy to stagnate and live in the past. There is a balance in there in appreciating and enjoying what you have, but still stoking a fire to do more.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 am
@Jenn
On my blog I write from a Christian perspective, but you are absolutely right - these principles are universal.
@db
Personally, I agree that I would like a lot of things the old-fashioned way, but my reason for writing this was to point out that even some people at the poverty line today can have some of the luxuries of the past.
I like how Daniel put it that, “wealth has dramatically flowed “downward.” -
To me the whole idea has been helpful because it changes my perspective from looking at what others today have that I don’t to realizing that I have things available to me that one of the richest men in history never did.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:34 am
I understand the point of the article, and in some ways agree, but let’s turn it around for a moment and compare the little people today with the little people of Rockefeller’s generation: Sure, they didn’t have ipods, air conditioning, computers, and cars, but they also didn’t have crushing debt to get these things (although they did have different kinds of debt). A lot of the flippant things they just did without though, not just in Rocefeller’s day, but right up to the age of credit too.
In alot of ways, we have returned to the indentured servitude of the pre-industrial revolution. Whereas they agreed to basically become slaves for 7 years to afford passage to the new world, we do it for an iphone. But at the same time, I feel like we are also more and more returning to the DiY mentality that people of that day lived by, so things are not all bad.
As for keeping up with the Joneses, I feel like I am somehow immune to this concept, since, much to my wife’s constant chagrin, I don’t give a toss what my neighbors and friends own. I think about what I want, and then purchase it to fulfill a (perceived need). Now, I still have been known to do that flippantly (hence my readership here), but I’m not out to impress anyone with a gadget. I consider myself very lucky for that.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:56 am
I don’t have more than Rockefeller had.
I don’t have a secure retirement.
I don’t know whether I’ll have a job next month.
I don’t have enough money to live by myself rather than with strangers.
I don’t know whether I will ever be able to afford to buy a house or have a family.
You know, I don’t even have air conditioning.
An iPod is not going to make up for this.
I recognize the value of gratitude, but it leaves a very sour taste in my mouth to hear someone else telling me to be grateful. It’s not that I’m bitter or envious or greedy.
It’s that I’m scared.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:14 am
I like the idea of being grateful, and of asking whether the currently available product/technology that I own meets my basic needs before I go buy something newer/fancier/more stylish. IMHO that doesn’t cause me to be lazy or overly content with my lot in life. It does help me make sure I get the most value for my money, minimize expenditures so I can maximize my savings, and lower my stress level.
Bringing Rockefeller into it seems to detract from the idea, though.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am
I enjoyed the global rich list tool. Being thankful for what we have is something that my husband and I try to do regularly. Its easy to see others with nicer cars or hear about vacations to Europe and want, want, want. But each night, I try to remember to be thankful for a roof over my head, food in my belly, pretty good health, a loving husband and a fuzzy dog.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am
I would expect a Christian PF article to mention the Beatitudes or the difficulties of passing camels through needles as points against Rockefeller, not his want of air conditioning.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
I always find articles that suggest a “frame shift” interesting — looking at things from a different perspective from the typical American one. I think part of the reason I enjoyed this article is that I spend last night watching a Nova program about poor Ethiopian women who often live their lives as outcasts because there aren’t enough doctors or money to treat childbirth-related injuries that render them incontinent (fistulas, etc.). I’m fine — thanks. My life is easy and very good in comparison.
Do we have more physical comforts at our disposal than Rockefeller did? Sure. And I would prefer not to have been a typical woman for most of history or in many other parts of the world. Now and here is imperfect but pretty good.
Unfortunately, being more comfortable than 90% of the world’s population doesn’t eliminate the universal human vice of envy (one of the “seven deadly sins” since the 6th century). Frankly, I doubt that even Rockefeller had everything he wanted. Some things are not for sale at any price.
We try to go with being grateful for what we have, and making decisions about which of our wants make sense to pursue. An important facet of wealth that I want my children to understand is that they are among the richest people on the planet, have everything they need, and will never have everything they want. I am embarrassed about how ignorant I was of this until I was well into adulthood.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am
I also greatly enjoyed the Global Rich List. It really puts things into perspective. Looking at where we are on the list made me very glad that my husband and I make donations to charities that help people less fortunate than ourselves. It also made me think that we should do more…
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:02 am
I actually came to terms with this just the other day. My car is a ‘96 Taurus and it runs great, but as the years go by it has been spending more and more time in the shop. I got the thing when I was in high school (I just graduated from college) and I started wanting a new car right after the new-ness of my Taurus wore off.
But while I was driving the other day it occurred to me that I don’t need a new car. Sure, my Taurus may not get more than 30 miles to a gallon but that’s still pretty good. It may not be as sexy as a new BMW, but I’m in a relationship and I know that he doesn’t care what I drive. It gets me from point A to point B and really there is no reason to get a new one until my Taurus becomes unsafe to drive or it just doesn’t work anymore.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 am
@Michael
I guess I will have to save that for another day.
Sorry that I failed to meet your expectations
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:53 am
“If we change the way we think of “wealth” and compare our standard of living to Rockefeller’s, we’re doing pretty good. In fact, I would go as far to say the majority of Americans live an all-around more “comfortable” life than Rockefeller did. Who then, is actually richer?
How much do we really need to be happy?
If your household annual income is over $50,000, then you are in the top 1% richest in the world. (See for yourself at the Global Rich List.) And if we can agree that most of us are living a more comfortable life than a billionaire at the turn of the Twentieth Century, then shouldn’t we be happy with what we have?”
The main problem with this comparison is the assertion that wealth and standard of living are causally linked.
Standard of living is affected by spending, whereas wealth is brought about by investing. A strong income ($50,000 per year) does not equal wealth. If that $50,000 per year was obtained from investments, the “wealth” is the investment from which the $50,000 income was generated and is independent from a standard of living. Using that income to buy things creates a standard of living. Trading some of that wealth for things also creates a standard of living.
Do the majority of Americans truly “live an all-around more “comfortable” life than Rockefeller?” Do they have the time and opportunity that Rockefeller enjoyed? If one is working to make a household income over $50,000 per year, are they really richer and better off than someone who has enough wealth to generate passive annual income over $50,000?
Standard of living is relative. Wealth is relative. Rich is a relative term. Indeed, comfort is relative. Income is just a way to keep score. One persons standard of living and wealth would be considered a pauper’s existence to someone else.
It’s true that we should be happy with what we have, but many would trade modern conveniences for the freedom and opportunity created by billionaire wealth, even at the turn of the Twentieth Century.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 am
While I agree with the idea of reframing, I’m also not so sure that change is always for the better. Some of what we have now isn’t better than what it replaced, and while we sometimes feel overwhelmed by the too-many-choices aspect of this culture, there’s also ways in which this culture narrows the choices available. I’m not looking forward to a time when there aren’t any more printed newspapers, to take a minor example, and I’m not going to be enthusiastic if physical checks (and someday, I suspect) physical money disappears… or, at a greater level, I’m already sad that the internet is so different from what it was, and the growing threats to privacy and the growing possiblity that the internet will become much more monitored and more expensive in terms of access…
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:24 am
I liked the article a lot but there are some apple and orange comparasions. To complete the comparision, you would be saying that to have indoor plumbing now would make you wealthier than most people now. The things we have today we have not due to everyone being rich like Rockefeller but due to advancements in technology and industry and society. Substitute Bill Gates for Rockefeller to get apples to apples and see where we fall short… retirement, savings, health care, fitness, education etc… just my observations. But the part about keeping up with the Jones is great. The Rockefeller comparision just doesn’t make sense.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
The part on keeping up with the Joneses reminds me of the $30,000 Millionaire as described in the following link:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2007-11-29/news/douchebags-in-the-mist
They were in the process of making a movie about this phenomenon, but I don’t think it has happened yet.
It is essentially a person making $30,000 per year living like they make much more in an effort to impress those around them. They typically lease BMW’s, wear the latest fashions and are “seen” at the latest clubs and restaurants.
It is a recipe for disaster if you must keep up with the Joneses. Good stuff!
June 2nd, 2008 at 11:10 am
@Emily
If your current life scares you then you need to come up with a plan to make your life better then act on the plan to the best of your ability. If you don’t have a secure retirement then start saving for retirement, even if it is a few % of your salary – a small start is better than doing nothing and if you don’t feel the pinch too much you can increase the contributions easily. You might look for a more stable job or make yourself more valuable in your current position so that you have more security. I thought this post had some really good ideas http://www.thesimpledollar.com/2008/02/08/working-smarter-no-matter-your-income-level-or-economic-situation. If you take action you can make a better future for yourself.
-Rick Francis
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I loved this post. It helped to remind me not to take things for granted and to appreciate what I have.
One of my favorite thoughts is that Bill Gates and I both have the same potential to be happy. And that some days I might even be happier than he is. He will always have more money but if I am lucky, I could be richer. What a thought.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I’m really not in the mood to be patronized, Rick Francis.
Let me leave it at that, okay?
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I appreciate your perspective Emily H. It’s one that’s not seen enough on this blog. I can’t say that I’m having the same experience, but I do empathize.
I hope things get better for you.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I also appreciated your posts, Emily, and couldn’t agree more with your reply to Rick Francis. Hopefully next time he will think twice before doling out unsolicited advice.
This was a thought-provoking and (by the looks of it) controversial article. Thanks JD (and Bob)!
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
Great article. Maybe it would have helped to make the comparison of an “upper-class” family in the 50’s to a so-called “middle-class” person of today. After all, most of us are currently living in a home formerly owned by someone in higher income bracket in the past (be it upper, upper-middle, or middle class).
Wealthier people can afford to build our future homes. Through time, those homes make their way through the system (and that process has only become faster in the past few decades). Adam Smith referenced this in Wealth of Nations when he noted that the average 1790 Scotsman lived in a home better than those of former kings (maybe even in a former king’s home), and better than those of kings in 1790 Africa.
No, we cannot all have the best of today, but we can certainly have better than what our grandparents even imagined. I’m sure most remember the two-car garage being quite a luxury. I do and I’m not THAT old. Heck, two televisions was a shock to the 50’s family in Back to the Future. Even the staples of today are far cheaper than they were in the past. If you want to cook for a family of five your bill will be far less expensive than in the past. And when I say “cook” I mean cook, not microwave a dish someone else already cooked for you.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
I love that you managed to quote Sheryl Crow in this post.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 am
Thanks for the captivating post. As citizens (in addition to our role as consumers), we have the right to choose what and how much we buy. Most of us in the relatively wealthy nations have some sense of the notion that buying stuff does not equal happiness. Our governments and businesses, however, have no such sense. A top policy goal in the United States is a perpetually growing economy, which means ever more consumption of goods and services. As long as economic growth remains among the highest priorities of society, reliance on citizens’ good sense will not lead to consumption at happy and sustainable levels.
If you want to take a stand on economic growth, or explore the issue in greater depth, visit the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) on the Web http://www.steadystate.org .
June 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 am
2. You can save a lot of money. When you are thankful that you have a car rather than having to ride the bus everyday, it makes it a lot easier to break the habit of buying a new car every year.
__________
Actually, I’m in that 1% and I WISH I lived in a city where I could ride the bus everyday! What’s wrong with riding the bus? Poor people are not the only people on the bus. Unfortunately my city, one of the top 15 largest cities in the country, has extremely poor bus service. I choose not to move, however, because I’m paid very well for what I do here. I’m able to have a comfortable living. In the larger cities, I would not be able to say that.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
As DB and many other commenters already eloquently noted, gadgets don’t make our or break our lives. Having our basic needs met and having the time to care for ourselves, our families, and our communities does. And today, the essentials for healthy survival–adequate housing, healthy food, health insurance, social support and community, access to education/training, mental health support, etc.–are out of the reach of many.
While Ipods and TVs may be getting more accessible and cheaper, healthcare, housing, food, transportation, and time to devote to the essentials of individual and community health and survival, and other basics are getting more and more expensive relatively and more inaccessible. What good is a TV or Ipod if one can’t afford necessary surgery or medication or safe housing?
Being grateful for what you have is wonderful,and “keeping up with the Joneses” doesn’t even register as an option or desire in my world. However, none of that changes the state of quality of life for the average American these days and the fact that the basics, esp. healthcare, education, and in many areas housing as well, have become and are becoming more and more out of reach every day.
We can be grateful and frugal without accepting the definition of wealth promoted in this post and without believing that we are better off today because we have easy access to cheap gadgets, most of which contribute little or nothing to our true quality of life (some do of course). True wealth is not possible without satisfying our needs for survival and health first.
Healthcare is one of the most important determiners of quality of life, and viability of life in general, and just since 2000, “the cost of family [health] coverage has risen 87 percent while consumer prices are up 18 percent and the pay of workers has increased 20 percent” reports an ‘06 New York Times article.
As a whole, gadgets like Ipods and Tvs don’t save lives on a regular basis no matter how cheap they may be or become. Medication, surgery, doctors, safe housing and neighborhoods, and time to care for one’s health and community do. And, okay, I’ll grant you this: a little air conditioning (esp. in a heatwave or for more vulnerable populations) doesn’t hurt, either.
[Please excuse the repetition in this comment; I haven't got the time to edit it down better and my writing in raw form is always redundant and wordy.]
June 6th, 2008 at 2:28 am
There is both up and downsides on living today. Yes we have clean water, air conditioning and the internet at our fingertips. It seems to make our lives somewhat easier. Then on the other hand we waste more energy using them. In turn that makes our air dirty, our kids sicker and our lives miserable.
Life was better back then. They helped more around the house, otherwise they didn’t have food to eat or a house to live in. They didn’t pay anyone to build their houses or barns. Everyone in town came and did a barn raising. They helped each other out in times of need. They knew who was living next to them.
I was reading on another website where some government officials were asking if they made living in the US better than the Indians did. The Indian guy replied there was no taxes, no debt. Plenty buffalo, plenty beaver. Medicine man free. Indian people hunted and fished all the time. Only white man dumb to think he could improve system like that.
One of the biggest trafficking of illegals, is wood. We are losing our trees left and right. I can remember driving from Seattle to Ellensburg back in 1975 and you couldn’t see the mountains and hills surrounding the highway. Almost every hilltop is bare now. They are having troubles w/ avalanches. Gee if there was trees the snow wouldn’t move as much. I say life was better in Rockafeller’s life. People weren’t as greedy back then as they are nowadays.
I say having a good family is more important to me than all the money in the world. You can’t buy your dad’s attention w/ money. I grew up having my dad drive me around and showing me sights that most people are too busy to look at anymore. I can point out an animal that most people wouldn’t take the time to look at anymore. Like I’ve said before talent is more important than money. Money comes and goes, talent stays w/ you your whole life.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:05 am
excellent perspective on wealth, debt, and living life in relation to what we really need.