How much money do you need to be happy?

Andyf33

Happiness and money are not linked, money and personal security that makes you worry less can be linked.

Im 34, married with 3 kids (with another on the way) and on a salary of 85k and still feel unhappy at times. True I can pay the bills, have nice house, a couple of cars and put a bit away for later but coming home from a crappy day at work and having a cuddle from the kids, reading them a story and hearing about their day makes me far happier than the money ever could.

ninky_2

stephen163 wrote: »

I don't fully understand what you're saying here. This is more than just a desire, this is a powerful drive and is necessary for the continuation of our species, at least historically. I can understand that the modern way of living has now altered the course of evolution in peculiar ways, but natural selection still exists and we still go to incredible lengths to find the most attractive mate.

Historically, a trait responsible for such a laissez faire attitude toward reproduction would quickly die out, so I think the argument you make is self defeating and the question shouldn't be whether our genetic legacy exists whether we have kids or not, but rather how the desire to have kids influences our behaviour.

The time and effort we spend in choosing a mate has much more to do with Civilization than it does with Darwinian theory.

We cannot know for certain the sex lives of pre-civilized humans but we can get a good idea if we look at those of our nearest biological neighbours, chimpanzees.

In this instance, the dominant (alpha) male, will have sex with most if not all of the females and a good deal of the males of the group. He achieves this position not because he is the Brad Pitt or Bill Gates of Chimpland (good looks, entrepreneurial skills) but because he is the most physically powerful and aggressive (more of your Mike Tyson type). Likewise, he does not only have sex with the “pretty” chimps – your Pamela Andersons or Cheryl Coles – he does it with all of them. The safety of the progeny of the group depends on group co-operation rather than competition.

As humans have become Civilized, females have been freed from non-consensual sex and an emphasis has been placed on the desirability of lifelong pairings in which children are to be raised. This means that it is no longer the competitive males that are guaranteed access, but rather women are free to choose and refuse on other criteria (kindness, good looks, adaptability). Similarly, as males are no longer able to have access to as many females as they wish for sexual purposes, they must make an informed selection beyond ‘hole and a heartbeat’ (sorry to be crude).

This civilizing process has occurred faster than the evolutionary process. I don’t think anyone has fully considered the impact it may have in terms of the make-up of Mankind in the long term.

I would argue that the desire to have a child is not a naturally deep-seated as the desire to have sex. (I am not being heartless in this, I myself was pregnant last year but miscarried). It is the sexual urge that continues regardless of whether offspring from the coupling are desired. I agree there is a protective urge towards babies and small children (and even towards other adults in many cases). But this protective urge is often there regardless of the existence a biological link (see the mass outrage at the Baby P case, it was the biological mother who failed to protect her child whilst non related members of the public felt a strong sense of protection) and serves the need for continuance of the species rather than just our individual offspring..

[Deleted User]

I have always saved the bit left over after spending on essentials etc and I am talking about the last 40 years and living an os happy lifestyle. Now we have enough in the pot to give us choices in our old age ie holidays and later perhaps care, cleaner, equipment etc That makes me happy ie knowing that we are not dependent on the younger generation, who have enough of a tax burden to shoulder

joka79

donaldtramp wrote: »

I think the key in all this is learning to be happy with what you have and not chasing consumerist nonsense.

Quite right - i mean come on, £250 for a pair of shoes!

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/184820-faulty-oliver-sweeney-shoes.html

Mozette

As someone cleverer than me said, Money can't buy happiness, but money can give happiness.
I've always wanted to win the mega -ist (no such word!) euro lotto roll over for gazillions of pounds, not that it would make me any happier, but because I could make all my friends & family happier by paying off mortgages, letting people leave jobs they hate, allow people to do what they want to do etc.
I would retire and spend the rest of my life travelling, reading, going to the theatre, cinema and generally spending as much of my time doing what I enjoyed doing.

Happiness - as I don't know who said - isn't having what you want, it's wanting what you have.

mp2

happiness is defined by an individual rather than a situation anyway.

imagine leaving your wallet on a table with £100 left in it. you go back the next day to find it and find £50 remaining. you can either by happy that you at least got £50 back or unhappy that someone took £50 from you.

same scenario , 2 different outlooks.

its not the situation e.g how much left in the wallet, how much money you have, but your outlook on life, that determines how happy you are.

also it can be hard to define happiness sometimes.

some people love to work to the bone, come home late from work exhausted, satisfied that theyve put in their all. theyre not defined as happy in terms of smiling and laughing but are 100% happy with themselves on the inside.

other people love sports and doing exercise. when youre doing sports youre focussed and taking it seriously rather than smiling/ being happy , but at the same time its what you love to do on a personal level.

being in pain after a long workout doesnt make you happy, yet at the same time you still want to feel that pain and tiredness as it reinforces what youve done so it can be hard to define happiness as there are many levels, not necessarily smiling and joking around.

donaldtramp

Quite right - i mean come on, £250 for a pair of shoes!

Whatever, I think you'll find that there are several Donaldtramps in existence on t'intenet;)

JayScottGreenspan

mp2 wrote: »

no one buys a nice car because they are trying to win friends. i think people can be quick to judge if they think someone driving a nice car is just showing off.

sometimes possessions give you a sense of achievement. its not a case of if i drive a porsche it will make someone happy but if they aspire to get a porsche and then manage to get it, there is a sense of personal achievement and sastisfaction when you get there.

getting a nice car or a nice house is often a reward for the hard work you done to achieving your goals. for example lots of people get a nice house as a result of saving their income rather than blowing it away.

I think everything you say here is true. I also think it just isn't worth it.

Tricked by subconscious desire to be the alpha male, or whatever, many Porsche owners have unwittingly spent a lot of units of their life chasing a joy and satisfaction that will be as fleeting as it will be shallow. Of course they will no doubt rationalise the transaction along the lines you indicate, and probably try to pretend it was all worth it.

Consciously they will of course be unaware of their motives, either for making the transaction, or indeed for their choice of rationalisation. They will just be "minding their own business".

People are driven to do all sorts of things, not all of which will make them happy.

mitchaa

novazombie wrote: »

Just seen Mitchaa hasnt changed his sig yet.

This one was made for him last year

Mitchaa`s future signature

Aberdeenshire Average Property Price
(Source Nationwide)
Q1 2009...up to 20% down
Q4 2009... another huge % DROP
Q4 2010... Oh no I cant sell my house.
Q2 2011... I`ve spent so much on my house its not fair its worth only 50% now
Yes i have lost a lot of money in this HPC :mad:


But he made a right fuss and insisted his house was still going up in value.

I dont agree with only worth 50% by 2011, I think it will be next year it will be 50% down.

The class Eejit i see, go and sit in the corner.

The signature is still factual so why on earth would i change it Your very poor attempt at a wind up is comical.

You really think when the stats are released by Nationwide next week that my area will go from being 10% up to 20% down, a drop of 30% in a 1/4

moggylover

mitchaa wrote: »

The class Eejit i see, go and sit in the corner.

The signature is still factual so why on earth would i change it Your very poor attempt at a wind up is comical.

You really think when the stats are released by Nationwide next week that my area will go from being 10% up to 20% down, a drop of 30% in a 1/4

I found this really interesting (and highly amusing since it gives us an idea of just what you might be living in if your still insistent that your particular value has gone up 10%):

http://www.home.co.uk/guides/asking_prices_report.htm?county=aberdeen&lastyear=1

Average Asking Prices By Number of Bedrooms in Aberdeenshire (£000's)


3-month moving averages by number of bedrooms in Aberdeenshire

Mar 2008 Mar 2009 Change
5 Bedrooms £508,474 £386,049 -24%
4 Bedrooms £335,691 £291,518 -13%
3 Bedrooms £251,264 £201,715 -20%
2 Bedrooms £192,079 £163,282 -15%
1 Bedroom £84,573 £105,614 +25%
All £210,923 £229,635 +9%
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: