The most often asked question on the subject, almost always, "Is wealth the answer to happiness?" The default answer seems to be the most neutral, if not one that is deemed free of argument, and that is, "It depends". Well, not really, because it leads to, "Depends on what?" And from there, the debate could ensue almost spontaneously, especially if it veers off into defining and arguing about, "What is happiness?"
Where does that leave us in today's day and age? It would help to first accept that life in general is a balancing act between being happy at one time, sad at another, ecstatic one day, miserable the next, because life seems to be more of a seesaw as opposed to a flat steady surface we could walk on without having to worry about falling or slipping. And there lies the phenomenon that is often less apparent. Worry.
If happiness is that wholesome state of mind, worry is the circular preoccupation that deters the mind from climbing out of a hole we made it dig for itself that results in thinking about something that is either not clearly defined or vaguely "gnawing at our gut". It is different from being concerned or cautious, even fearful of something real. We can be concerned about our health, cautious of our driving or traveling, fearful of the dangers to an unattended baby, gas stove left on, or the proverbial iron we forgot to unplug, broken glass on the floor, a cobra slithering by, etc. But, we worry about money. And it is not just about not having enough - for today and for years to come - but having too much is also a cause for worry. Is it safe where it is kept or invested? Will it last as I continue to live like this and can I handle that moment when I can no longer maintain this lifestyle?
Happiness and worry are both weightless entities but in the seesaw of life they are so contentiously weighty that keeping them in balance is the key to an uncomplicated life. But what does that really mean - an uncomplicated life?
Can we rely on studies? So many had been conducted. Below is a quote from one of them.
"Happiness is definitely subjective, which means that it's particularly challenging for people to decide what makes one place happier than another. After all, a stunning vista with trees and mountains might be a city dweller's idea of misery. Luckily, it's not up to us. The Happiness Research Institute charts the feelings and emotions of people from countries around the world. It factors in how people feel about themselves, as well as how they feel about the world around them".
Ranked in the order 1-10, 1 being the happiest, we can see that they are not the wealthiest nations by any means but they're not the poorest either.
Austria, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark, Finland, Norway.
We won't argue with why those folks from the above ten countries feel the way they do but what about those from places where people do not have access to technology to respond to the surveys (because they do not have cell phones or computers). What about those from the interior of the Amazon rainforest, the steppes of Mongolia, remote islands over the Pacific, nomads on the Kalahari, and many others? People there most certainly have uncomplicated lives compared to societies in the developed world but they are never asked.
The short answer is that happiness cannot be purchased by wealth. If a wholesome state of mind is our ultimate goal, then having just enough could be the ticket. But, having just enough is all relative!
It might all come down to, in the end, that happiness is the absence of worry!
Now, since this is my continuing series on "the other side of .." let us look at the other side of wealth.
Mountainous regions make up only 24 % of the earth's land surface area. Of that total there are only 108 mountains on earth that are 7,300 meters (23,622 ft) and, of course, there is only one Mt. Everest and one K2, both located along the Himalayas. Now, the reader may ask, "What has that got to do with the subject of "wealth"? Some of you may already have paused for a moment to have a glimpse of where this is going. We'll get to it in a bit.
Mountains are the sources of all flowing rivers, streams and waterfalls - many of which fill every lake, marshes and water tables below ground. Ice melts from the Alps, the Himalayas, all other mountain ranges, sustain the water supply at the lowlands that surround them. Life on the surface of the planet depends on mountains; not just for the water to flow down but for carrying along with it nutrients to replenish lands along the river banks and deltas at the river's mouth. The fertile land of the Nile Delta and many other similar places depend on the yearly flow and overflow of nutrients that commence from every mountainside; ultimately into the seas where many life forms depend on it as well. Spawning of fish, primarily many species of salmon, depend on rivers and the spawning ground from up above, safe from predators, before they are old enough as young fish to swim downstream into the sea.
Now, let's talk about the "filthy rich" people. Compared to the mountainous regions on earth, more so to those with elevations over 7,300 meters, there are actually fewer rich people as a percentage of the population. But let's see how, throughout history, can the existence of these ultra rich people be justified, vis-à-vis the development of civilizations and for improving the lives of people. Or, to ask it another way, why do we really need rich people? Aside from making them the object of contempt or jealousy, they are maligned as the economic equivalent of villains in the story of life. That is one view. There is another.
Before there were rich people, a lot of the wealth - money and property - were in the hands of kings, conquerors, monarchs (of different flavors), and those with the power of the sword. Prior civilizations were shaped by those with the wealth to finance and control an army who wielded far superior weaponry to subjugate the general population, including those they conquered. Empires changed hands, wealth transferred from territory to territory.
Briefly, it was late in the 17th century when wealth started to transfer to ordinary people with extraordinary skills at running businesses and industries. That was right about after the Black Death that ravaged much of Europe. Monarchies began paying competitive wages to people to work the lands as workers/slaves were decimated by the deathly effects of the plague; soon followed by fiefdoms and royalties giving up much of their land for ordinary people to manage and develop. Shortly after that the industrial revolution followed.
Industrial empires grew out of Europe, Asia and in the New World, in succession. The new emperors were those who led giant industries and businesses. The tall empires of monarchies were replaced by business and industrial empires, effectively changing the concentration of wealth and power.
Mountains of monarchies were replaced by mountains of industry. Vestiges of the military might remain. They are known today as the industrial/military complex.
If one must think deeply enough, that is how the world economy keeps going. Five years ago I mused about "Mountains To Molehills" where I bemoaned the idea from those living in the lowlands who wanted that mountains should be leveled to ground level for the sake of equality, although they really meant "equity". There should be equality in opportunities but equitable results are not to be expected or demanded.
Industries created by Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Ford, etc. created mountains that fed jobs that created goods that benefited millions of people. Steel created railroads and factories, cars and trains and ships allowed unprecedented mobility. It was mountains of industries that created today's modern society. Wozniak and Jobs, Hewlett and Packard, Sam Walton, Dell, Bill Gates, Bezos and Elon Musk are modern-day giants from whose intellect, vision and determination elevated their respective industries that are the source of thousands upon thousands of jobs.
Like the geological mountains that arose from unimaginable forces from beneath the earth, from the collision of tectonic plates, wealth from industries were created by those folks out of pure determination, willpower, intellect and visions, sometimes at the expense of their own personal lives, that made them into tall mountains.
Innovations that led to new products that led to jobs are examples of new mountains created by those who in the process became wealthy. "Tax the rich", now a political mantra from some quarters, would then seem like asking for more water from the mountains when so much had already come downriver.
Lest we forget, wealth and property has nowhere else to go but remain on the planet until such time that investments open up in Mars and other parts of the solar system. Let them have their mansions, their yachts and their jets because it would take jobs and peripheral businesses to create all those "toys". And they can't take it with them. Sooner or later wealth gets recycled, re-invested.
That is the other side of wealth.
Meanwhile, if you can be free of worry, not living luxuriously but managing well enough in the middle - not too rich but not poor - you will only be the envy of the rich.
