The Mindless Accumulation of Wealth.

I was presented with an opinion today as it was a fact. This is not unusual in today’s world, as almost everything we see on television, in social media, and in what is portrayed as news is now opinion, most often presented as fact, but what caught my attention was an opinion on what the phrase “Money can’t buy you happiness.” The author believes the meaning is clearly that the “mindless accumulation of excess wealth leads to diminishing returns on happiness.”  A wonderfully egalitarian view that if you have too much money it won’t improve your happiness (however that is defined).  In fairness, it goes on to say it does not mean “poor people should learn to be content without basic necessities or financial security.” An equally wise and wonderful opinion on what the phase can’t mean. But are either opinion true? 

To answer this question, I think we first should define happiness, but is there such a thing?  Is there one “Universal” standard for happiness? Going back to our founding we see in the Declaration of Independence the claim that all men have an equal claim on the rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Did they mean that all men had an equal claim on wealth? The men who wrote these words, and who endorsed them with their signatures had wealth and standing they put at risk with the declaration.  So, it seems unlikely they considered wealth as a key to the pursuit of happiness.  Rather, several scholars note a desire for the government to not control an individual’s life, without that individual having a voice in the decisions.  These three attributes, life, liberty, and the ability to attempt to be happy were, and are, considered natural rights or rights a government can’t (or shouldn’t) attempt to control.

In 1943, Abraham Maslow, a noted American Psychologist, wrote a thesis on what motivates people.  His theory stratified human needs into an escalating series beginning with the most basic of survival needs going up to self-actualization. While the hierarchy deals with human motivation, we can presume it also speaks to the pursuit of happiness, for if you are concerned with where your next meal is coming from, you cannot reasonably pursue your dream, can you?  The socialists among us would say that is absolutely true, yet we have case study after case study where those who ultimately achieved great success did precisely that. How many artists struggle to survive while painting, composing, writing, or in some way creating a masterpiece?  All without the government promising to maintain a standard of living or a minimum livable wage?

At the end of the day I, and others, come away with an understanding that happiness can only be defined by the individual.  What makes me happy is not what will make someone else happy.  The idea of happiness is an intrinsic condition to our species. Is the accumulation of wealth related to happiness? Perhaps for some, but I suspect the accumulation of wealth is a simple by-product of those driven to achieve something that others find ultimately desirable.

For example, is Bill Gates happy?  Let’s assume so.  Would he be happier if he had less wealth, or is he happy because of his wealth?  Or maybe, just maybe there some other reason? How did Gates become wealthy?  He pursued a strategy that made his software the most desired commodity in the dawning of the home computer age. In a time when the world transitioned from analog to digital, he was on the ground floor with a product that allowed that growth. Should the government demand Bill Gates forsake his wealth to pay for others who were not so driven or fortunate, or should Bill be allowed to use his wealth as he sees fit?  That is the question.

Did his pursuit of wealth lead to the loss of happiness for others, or did he bring thousands along with him?  Was his accumulation of extreme wealth mindless or was he driven by some other need?

But what about the “anti-Gates?”  Someone who lives in the inner city, someone who has dropped out of school, someone who can’t hold a job, perhaps is addicted to something, and just barely survives on the welfare of the state?  Is he happy? Should the government do more to improve his lot in life and would that make him happy?  What should the government do?  If happiness is an inner decision then how can the government with all its impersonal decision-making (where one size fits most), motivate this individual to pursue his happiness?

I come back to the basic phrase that started this “Money can’t buy you happiness.” My generation spent the entirety of its parenting years trying to buy happiness with its money.  We created trophies for everyone, we’ve told ourselves and our kids everyone is unique and worth admiration, we’ve tried to minimize the impacts of racism and discrimination while we pursued financial security for our senior years.  Our government told us “don’t worry you have social security,” so too many of us felt we should buy more than we could afford and are now looking at a bleak future.  We’ve passed those qualities on to your youngsters who now believe the government is responsible for making sure everyone achieves all the need levels of Maslow’s hierarchy, while men like Gates, Buffett, Musk, and Bezos are vilified for their extreme wealth and “white privilege.”

When does someone stop and ask, do we have too much government, and are all those supposed safety-net policies destroying the very things the poorest among us need to have the motivation to pursue their own definition of happiness and success?