We are wealthy and why it matters

Thought provoking.
Not sure I totally agree with it.
I need to read the article in more depth.

First thoughts. Yes, the man in the article is wealthy.

Not sure that can be said of younger people in this country. Often they have student loan debts. And money they earn goes towards very high rents. Plus if they are living with someone, yes they often do have two cars, but they need them to get to work, as it would be too far to work.

I can only speak about my DD that is married, but her furniture/bits and bobs came from wedding presents and second hand stores. It could all be sold I suppose, but would barely make 2 months rent/mortgage.
And in this country, living in a tent is hardly going to be adequate.

It sounds like I am making excuses. And I totally take on board the healthcare bit.
But equally, a lot of people, the young in particular in this country, are not living a life of extravagence, more a getting by lifestyle.

Personally, I think that older people in this country are the ones with rose tinted glasses on the whole about wealth, as indeed quite a lot of them do have wealth.

A good deal of my furniture is secondhand either via family (grandparents) or from secondhand shops. Always has been. So has my mother's. So was my grandparents'. But, as the article points out in various ways, this is still wealth compared to those much worse off than us, which is probably at least half the world's population.

It's not a question of living a life of extravagance or not.

I take your point, but it is much like the thread about poverty.
What is the definition of wealthy?
Who decides what is wealthy, and what is normal/average/getting by.

Plus I am always hugely wary of country comparisons.
£10 in some countries will get you a lot more food/house/goods than £10 in another country.
Which is why I think that when you hear that someone's wages are tiny in another country, so probably are their other bills.
A sweeping gnereralisation, but I think you get my drift.

I would google, but have got things to do.

The article isn't really about amounts or things. I think it's more about having what you need, and more than you need, and appreciating that fact.

Compare that to not even having access to clean water.

I totally agree with the article but how many of us are going to give/donate what we don't need,use or is totally surplus to our style of life? not many I expect. If it is to make us totally aware of how wealthy and lucky we are, then I take that point entirely,but wealth and luck come in many forms, health, family, education etc and we are not really able to change that as individuals apart from challenging governments and trying to influence a change in everyones thinking.

Absolutely. It is not about one car or two cars,owning a house or renting.

The school I retired from runs a biennial exchange with a school in India. The school in question is actually a very middle class one with the sort of outlook that many of us would find old fashioned, if not downright Fifties, but the staff are lovely people. Our kids, when they go out to India, find the poverty around them an eye opener, yet as I said, by Indian standards, this is a middle class school and its pupils come from aspirational families. When they visit us in the UK, the teachers' eyes are out on stalks at the equipment, IT resources, books, facilities etc of our "bog standard" comprehensive and cannot understand why our kids take it all for granted . And wonder why many of our kids do not appear to value their opportunities, which in India could mean the road out of poverty.
It is relative isn't it? Once you get away from the notion of absolute poverty, some people will always feel hard-up compared to those who have more, whether it is a little more or much more.

"Keeping up with the Joneses" says much about our human nature.

Your post of 9.24am thatbags, is at odds with your subject heading in my opinion.
The 9.24am post compares poverty to every other standard of living. But your subject heading talks about wealth and every other standard of living.

I am not at all sure of your angle, as there are many many shades in between.
And you yourself[I think it is you] often talk about how other countries are getting wealthier.

I am .

Surely all of us appreciate what we have?

Oh soontobe I could not disagree more with that!!
How dissatisfied are many people with their homes/ car/ clothes /partner/ jobs /looks?
That is what underpins our whole acquisitive commercialised society and is the raison d'être of advertising!

Maybe not you, maybe not me, but a heck of a lot of people look around and want what that guy's got, or resent others' good fortune, riches, or looks.

If we truly got what we deserved what would that be like?

I think your interpretation of the word "wealthy" is founded on material wealth. Think riches instead, think of what we mean by the opposite poverty and then try to look at those concepts from the point of view of someone in the third world, a migrant or refugee, or a homeless down and out.

But thatbag's subject heading, and thatbag's op is discussing wealth. The concept of wealth, not the concept of riches or the concept of being thankful/grateful, or the concept of poverty.

But if she wants to discuss something else or anyone else does, then fine. But I thought it was wealth that is being discussed.

Perhaps best if I leave this particular thread.

You don't think that there is any othe kind of wealth, then? - family, friends, environment, knowledge, security, opportunities? I didn't take thatbags OP as just meaning money, and if you read her subsequent posts, she didn't mean it in that narrow way.

Of course there is Elegran, but I have now become so confused about the thread, link and posts, that I am staying away!

Oh dear, did you actually read my post about relative wealth, soontobe?
You ask "what is the definition of wealthy?"
That is the point
Poverty is the reverse of the coins to wealth so it is hard to discuss one without the other. If you were Lady Mary "posh paws" Crawley, your definition of "wealthy " might be different from someone much poorer than you or indeed someone much richer!
So I don't think you should be so nit-picking about thatbags's choice of thread title or the content of her posts.

I'm sorry you have been confused, soon. I took the thread title from the article that the link in the opening post goes to. Did you read it? If not, might I suggest that you do? And then perhaps we'd be on the same tack

Is that article an example of virtue signalling.

I think it might be.

I mean - no one has thought of that before have they?

"I am content with what I have
Little it be or much.
And Lord, contentment still I crave
Because Thou savest such."

I can't remember where that came from, but it's old.

No, I don't think it is virtue signalling, jings. I think it is just pointing out reality.

I have been asking for a long time why various business people, footballers, government ministers etc. need such high salaries in order to attract them to the job. So many times we are told that we have to keep up when it comes to high salaries or we cannot attract the right people to jobs. That only holds true if the other CEOs etc. have these high salaries and bonuses - it is all relative and people think that if someone else is worth £x then so are they.

But what the heck do they find to spend it all on? What is the point of it? It all just snowballs. I find it offensive and depressing and essentially nonsense. These people truly have more than they need; as do most of us in the west, including me.

Our income would look very weedy in comparison with many, but we truly are rich - I am never struggling for food, and whatever we need we are able to buy. We do not need much, is the crux of the matter.

If you have a lot of money then you find things that you need that have developed into necessities, but which really are not.

We are rich in family, countryside, companionship, artistic and musical activities - our quality of live is excellent (barring health problems). We do have more than we need because we have some savings. There are very few people in the west who do not have all they need (but maybe not all they want).

I agree jingl post 13.40pm
I am beginning to feel that the whole world is actually on a loop. And things we had thought of/decided on/chosen 30/40/50 years ago, are all now coming around again, and portrayed, as some bright new thought/idea.

Think wars/fashion/wallpaper/economics etc.

Though I do think IS is a bit of a new phenomena[spelling]

[I dont read many of a certain poster's links, but I do read most other peoples' links, thatbags, including yours]

I agree about ideas going round, and a good thing too, especially when they are good ideas, then they are available for each generation.

Well I really don't get where you are coming from re your "loop" comment, soontobe
Nobody is claiming awareness of the discrepancy between the perception of wealth in one society and that in another is a new phenomenon, just because something is an eternal truth(jingl's quotation) , does not mean comment today is invalid.

I suspect you may not have read or understood the article properly.

It was John Bunyan, jingl (1628-1688)

www.bartleby.com/296/140.html

There is another thread about buying 32 presents for a GC! Definitely a case of want rather than need.