I believe there's a song by "Silverchair" that offers the line:
You say that money, isn't everything,At first blush it seems like money affects everything one does or may have an opportunty to do. Physically it effects everything from the prenatal care you receive (or don't), the food you eat (is ketchup a vegatable), the clothes you wear (what do you mean I have to wear this sweater from the 60's as my winter jacket), where you live, or even if you can get a doctor's appointment for that sinus infection or as my neighbor in South Carolina said, "just let the durn thing pop and ooze out a bit".
But I'd like to see you live without it.
Emotionally/developmentally there are a few benefits if one has money. One can stay home with his or her child (because no one can forget the Harlow experiments), environmental stressors and their affects on one's psycholgical well being (like getting a good grade on a test versus ignoring the late night conversations on how a family will afford rent), or being able to afford some outside help if something should happen in one's family or community (can get a counselour to help deal with divorce, for example), or any number of other examples.
And when looking at opportunities it is clear that those with cash have a few more doors open to them. Anything from gymnastic classes to football pads, from musical instraments to banging on buckets, from the school that has college prep to the one that has get a person through ---
But, there are many who argue money is actually a "prison" of sorts. And clearly there are exceptions to every "rule" out there. And, of course, spiritually many leaders have different takes on money and its affects on people/society ---
so how do you do define freedom? Is money/class more significant of an issue than what we in America are willing to address, recognize, or imagine?
4 comments:
To add to this discussion, I would like to contrast two views on this topic. I choose my own views and those given by Thoreau in “Civil Disobedience” and I believe that these two standpoints represent opinions held by larger groups of people. My views are more of the middle ground and Thoreau’s are one extreme end, concerning the importance of money. I will not address the other extreme which actually equates money with freedom because it wasn’t too supported by the class; we hear enough opinions of this sort from the people on TV.
My personal opinion, which I claim to be the middle ground, is that money is not only a worthwhile possession but it is important in society and for the improvement of society but is in no way necessary for happiness or survival. The opinion of Thoreau is that money is equated with materialism, and not true happiness, and that one’s life should not depend on money.
I say that money is worthwhile mostly because of what rumbacher said; money opens up many opportunities for a satisfying and happy life. Money usually carries with it some assurance of safety to a family and to children, and the value of security is strong in America. Now, Thoreau would put forward, being a Transcendentalist, that detachment from all these good things that money can procure is a good thing. Instead of relying on opportunities and goods for happiness, Thoreau believed that one should seek to go above the common human experience.
My other support for the benefits of money is that, in today’s society, money gets things done and makes life move forward. While it is possible for a man to build a house, it takes much less effort and time to pay for a new house, and a man with a broken arm may mend it in time, but it will heal much faster with purchased medical help. Thoreau’s view towards society is that he can live a happy life without ever paying or earning any money. It is true that a man can live happily without money, growing his own food and making his own clothes, but his daily tasks would take a very long time, and if everyone were to live like this, society would never progress. There would be no specialization and no research and very few activities beyond survival.
My comment is addressing the original post and the question, “Is money/class more significant of an issue than what we in America are willing to address, recognize, or imagine?”
I think the answer to that question is yes. While some people are unwilling to recognize the significance of class and money, others simply cannot imagine it. Both can be a problem. Some people cannot imagine the significance of money and class because it is difficult for them to compare their situations to others. It could because most people they know are similar to them in class. It’s not that no one understands their financial situation—if your family can’t afford a doctor appointment, you probably know you have less money that other people. It’s more that people can’t truly understand other people’s positions. I was thinking about this while we were discussing the high salaries of CEOs. I can’t even begin to imagine what that kind of money that is. Sure, I understand that those people can afford anything they want, whether it’s a mansion or 200 pairs of shoes, but I can’t imagine living that way. That amount of money is beyond anything I have experienced.
Another problem with understanding money and class is that some people grow up without a clear conception of money. This is a personal example, but I’m sure that other people have had similar experiences. My parents have never discussed money with my siblings or me. My parents are also amazed that my sister doesn’t understand why she can’t have a closet full of expensive clothes like her friends. She sees that her friends have houses like ours, so she thinks that we should be able to have what they do. There’s a difference between how much money people appear to have and what they actually have.
How can you answer the question is “Is money freedom?” without understanding what money can do for you in the first place? I don’t think you can. A person would need to have been taught how much things cost, and why they can or cannot afford certain things. I think most people can only realistically imagine having a little more or a little less money than they do now. If people cannot imagine the significance of money and class, it makes it even more difficult for people to recognize or address the problems associated with it.
Though money itself is freedom, the process of obtaining it may lead to its own kind of slavery. Even though it would be logical that those who have enough money to support themselves comfortably would no longer be bound to this sort of servitude, this is not always the case. Those who have the most money are often looking for ways to get more; hence the high level businessmen who spend their lives in their offices isolating themselves from outside relationships. People often also get stuck in a cycle of consumerism, trying to have the newest and best of everything. This is the artificial need that Galbraith mentioned in “Wealth and Poverty.”
There is another important paradox in the freedom that money seemingly provides. Take, for example, politicians. When they receive campaign contributions they gain the ability to run for, and possibly become, president. Without the money they would never have had the freedom to even consider that option. The problem is that they are now bound to their donors if they wish to get re-elected. Instead of doing what’s best for the people as a whole, or even acting according to their own conscience as Thoreau would have suggested, they are tied to the rule of the few. Even the donors themselves, may not be free, as they may be the same people caught in a cycle of consumerism and isolation.
Having too little money leads to loss of freedom, as explored in the preceding posts and comments, but, in my opinion, so does pursuing money too far past the point of need and comfort. I believe that the pursuit of money, like all things, should be practiced in moderation. Money itself provides freedom but if you sell yourself into slavery in order to obtain it, what have you really gained? For, as Keynes says, “Money is only important for what it will procure.” If you are in no longer in a position to enjoy the things money gains for you, it is probably not worth it any longer.
Post a Comment