I don't have much to contribute here, but one of my favorite lines of dialogue is from the same episode: "Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?"
Such a perfect little tribute to the oft-ignored pleasure of sitting down.
1) I’m good! Slept great last night. Walked a lot today. Worked in the AMNH lounge and tried the new Shake Shack black truffle burger.
2) Still no :-(
3) Also no, but I like the concept of them.
4) Fuck, I am striking out on these!
5) Frustrated and disappointed in myself!
I like the Scientific American article, even though I don’t think I exactly agree with your gloss of it. I absolutely agree wealth can have not just diminishing but negative returns. Paul Wachtel’s The Poverty of Affluence from 1983 captures some of this.
I also think it’s important to realize how much people actually don’t spend their money beyond a certain point. They either invest it and hope for more, or give it away, and I don’t think either path is necessarily happy. Look at Bezos’s ex-wife, Mackenzie Scott.
But I have a question for YOU: do you think the goal of life is to maximize happiness? Would you identify as a hedonist?
Thank you as always for your thoughtful response here, Tom!
A couple thoughts in response:
Regarding the Scientific American article, I wasn't providing my own gloss of it; I was sharing a direct quote from it, wherein the author was describing (in their words) "Our main finding."
Regarding this: "I also think it’s important to realize how much people actually don’t spend their money beyond a certain point. They either invest it and hope for more, or give it away, and I don’t think either path is necessarily happy," I have some thoughts.
One, I have a question based on the fact that the average American (from a brief googling just now) is about $100,000 in debt. My question is, when you say "people actually don’t spend their money beyond a certain point," what do you mean? Many people are living paycheck to paycheck and many people are in debt. So many people actually don't have all that much to save, invest, OR give away.
Another is that I agree with you that there is not necessarily a guarantee that one path leads to more happiness than another.
HOWEVER, a third thing is this: "Research has established that altruistic behavior increases happiness. We examined this phenomenon across cultures, differentiating between individualistic and collectivist cultures."
I'm certainly no expert, but I've read books and listened to podcasts and talks from folks in the effective altruism movement, and it does seem that the research suggests that being altruistic leads to happiness more than the alternative.
And as for your final question, I wouldn't say that I identify as a hedonist. I would say that something that resonates with me is the goal of many Buddhists, which is the end of suffering and its roots AND the increase of happiness and its roots for all sentient beings. So maybe I'm a hedonist on behalf of all beings. But also, the word/concept of hedonism has connotations to me that are more associated with momentary pleasures than the happiness more aligned with a life of meaning and flourishing and deeper satisfactions like that, you know? So, with those definitions of happiness in mind, I do believe that a worthy goal in life is to strive to increase happiness and decrease its opposite, for all sentient beings.
Thank you for asking! I hope my answers have helped bring you happiness!
I'm happy to be having this discussion with you. Much love.
Sorry, possibly I’m not 100% clear on what a gloss is. I didn’t mean that you didn’t get it or weren’t quoting it correctly.
I think I meant that the context in the article about scaling happiness ratings in different societies relative to a ladder versus 0-10, and the full texture of social happiness, are all compelling. But it felt like you were maybe extending that to support a stronger statement about giving qua happiness. Maybe I was just conflating different parts of the post though.
Then I think I get the part about capitalism pulling a trick, if you mean capitalism forces people to compare themselves with others and thereby devote more energy to it to achieve happiness, ensuring its existence and dominance — even though happiness and fulfillment can also be found without capitalism, more easily. Like the song “Civilization” by the Andrews Sisters and Danny Kaye. The usual objections to that are capitalism requiring freedom and personal choice (gag me) and capitalism producing things like penicillin (I’m listening).
As for the average American, he or she is one of the wealthiest people who ever lived, and don’t let any SEO financial scam site or bogus survey tell you otherwise! The average household net worth (assets minus debt) in the US is well over a million dollars, and even the median is over six figures. The average debt is high and should be high, because the tax code favors mortgage debt and student loans so people take them out. My team used to prepare weekly reports on assets, income, and debt for the CFO of the US’s largest bank, and I think it’s fair to say the people of the US have never been wealthier. The ones with revolving credit card debt should probably stop that, but hey personal freedom (🙄).
Post-COVID inequality even reversed for a minute, but that’s back to going the other way now. Unfortunately another feature of capitalism as we practice it is that capital returns more than labor, so inequality necessarily increases except when something really terrible happens. Hopefully Pete Buttigieg has some ideas to address this at some point. But historically it takes crises to effect structural change. Like the parable says: “we’ll see.”
I think I prefer the word “fulfillment” to “happiness,” because for me it better evokes the sacrifices and passions of a full and meaningful life. “Happiness” sounds too much like “fun.” This may be another parent thing.
Since your life’s work and sacrifices are literally in the service of making people laugh and have fun, I can see how maybe there’s not as much distinction for you! Not that I think you’re saying giving wealth away is fun — although you might be?
Anyway, I am glad that we both value written interaction and get to have these conversations, and I’m glad that Substack exists as a capitalist enterprise allowing me to pay you for that value. I do sort of hope the regulators who brought us stuff like the credit card interchange fees and monopolistic pricing of web services and whatnot that take a cut of all that would get reincarnated as beetles. Perhaps they will.
I appreciate the updated statistics about income/assets/debt in the US.
For sure, the line I quoted from the Scientific American article does not represent the entirety of the article's message OR the entire story about how much money people have, make, give, or how they feel about it or in general.
I chose it because it DOES represent the greater point of my piece of writing which is essentially "giving feels good (even if capitalism tries to make us feel like the opposite is so."
I also like the word "fulfillment," though I'm still good with "happiness" as well. I'm also a fan of "fun" (the word and concept), though I recognize that specific choices and specific definitions are potentially differently valuable (!) depending on context.
(I don't think I would say that "fun" is what people feel when they share their monetary wealth with others. But maybe some people would!)
Thanks again for sharing all that you share! Chatting with you makes me feel happy, fulfilled, fun, and more!
I don't have much to contribute here, but one of my favorite lines of dialogue is from the same episode: "Oh, yes, sitting. The great leveler. From the mightiest Pharaoh to the lowliest peasant, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?"
Such a perfect little tribute to the oft-ignored pleasure of sitting down.
haha i love it! thank you sincerely for this valuable contribution! who DOESN'T enjoy a great sit indeed!
Favorite Simpson’s joke is and will always be…
Marge (in car): Careful of the apple pie on the seat.
Grandpa: Uh-oh!
Marge: Grandpa, are you sitting on the pie?
Grandpa: I sure hope so…
hahaha perfect, thank you for sharing!
1) I’m good! Slept great last night. Walked a lot today. Worked in the AMNH lounge and tried the new Shake Shack black truffle burger.
2) Still no :-(
3) Also no, but I like the concept of them.
4) Fuck, I am striking out on these!
5) Frustrated and disappointed in myself!
I like the Scientific American article, even though I don’t think I exactly agree with your gloss of it. I absolutely agree wealth can have not just diminishing but negative returns. Paul Wachtel’s The Poverty of Affluence from 1983 captures some of this.
I also think it’s important to realize how much people actually don’t spend their money beyond a certain point. They either invest it and hope for more, or give it away, and I don’t think either path is necessarily happy. Look at Bezos’s ex-wife, Mackenzie Scott.
But I have a question for YOU: do you think the goal of life is to maximize happiness? Would you identify as a hedonist?
Thank you as always for your thoughtful response here, Tom!
A couple thoughts in response:
Regarding the Scientific American article, I wasn't providing my own gloss of it; I was sharing a direct quote from it, wherein the author was describing (in their words) "Our main finding."
Regarding this: "I also think it’s important to realize how much people actually don’t spend their money beyond a certain point. They either invest it and hope for more, or give it away, and I don’t think either path is necessarily happy," I have some thoughts.
One, I have a question based on the fact that the average American (from a brief googling just now) is about $100,000 in debt. My question is, when you say "people actually don’t spend their money beyond a certain point," what do you mean? Many people are living paycheck to paycheck and many people are in debt. So many people actually don't have all that much to save, invest, OR give away.
Another is that I agree with you that there is not necessarily a guarantee that one path leads to more happiness than another.
HOWEVER, a third thing is this: "Research has established that altruistic behavior increases happiness. We examined this phenomenon across cultures, differentiating between individualistic and collectivist cultures."
That comes from here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10326385/
(Another brief googling.)
I'm certainly no expert, but I've read books and listened to podcasts and talks from folks in the effective altruism movement, and it does seem that the research suggests that being altruistic leads to happiness more than the alternative.
And as for your final question, I wouldn't say that I identify as a hedonist. I would say that something that resonates with me is the goal of many Buddhists, which is the end of suffering and its roots AND the increase of happiness and its roots for all sentient beings. So maybe I'm a hedonist on behalf of all beings. But also, the word/concept of hedonism has connotations to me that are more associated with momentary pleasures than the happiness more aligned with a life of meaning and flourishing and deeper satisfactions like that, you know? So, with those definitions of happiness in mind, I do believe that a worthy goal in life is to strive to increase happiness and decrease its opposite, for all sentient beings.
Thank you for asking! I hope my answers have helped bring you happiness!
I'm happy to be having this discussion with you. Much love.
Sorry, possibly I’m not 100% clear on what a gloss is. I didn’t mean that you didn’t get it or weren’t quoting it correctly.
I think I meant that the context in the article about scaling happiness ratings in different societies relative to a ladder versus 0-10, and the full texture of social happiness, are all compelling. But it felt like you were maybe extending that to support a stronger statement about giving qua happiness. Maybe I was just conflating different parts of the post though.
Then I think I get the part about capitalism pulling a trick, if you mean capitalism forces people to compare themselves with others and thereby devote more energy to it to achieve happiness, ensuring its existence and dominance — even though happiness and fulfillment can also be found without capitalism, more easily. Like the song “Civilization” by the Andrews Sisters and Danny Kaye. The usual objections to that are capitalism requiring freedom and personal choice (gag me) and capitalism producing things like penicillin (I’m listening).
As for the average American, he or she is one of the wealthiest people who ever lived, and don’t let any SEO financial scam site or bogus survey tell you otherwise! The average household net worth (assets minus debt) in the US is well over a million dollars, and even the median is over six figures. The average debt is high and should be high, because the tax code favors mortgage debt and student loans so people take them out. My team used to prepare weekly reports on assets, income, and debt for the CFO of the US’s largest bank, and I think it’s fair to say the people of the US have never been wealthier. The ones with revolving credit card debt should probably stop that, but hey personal freedom (🙄).
Post-COVID inequality even reversed for a minute, but that’s back to going the other way now. Unfortunately another feature of capitalism as we practice it is that capital returns more than labor, so inequality necessarily increases except when something really terrible happens. Hopefully Pete Buttigieg has some ideas to address this at some point. But historically it takes crises to effect structural change. Like the parable says: “we’ll see.”
I think I prefer the word “fulfillment” to “happiness,” because for me it better evokes the sacrifices and passions of a full and meaningful life. “Happiness” sounds too much like “fun.” This may be another parent thing.
Since your life’s work and sacrifices are literally in the service of making people laugh and have fun, I can see how maybe there’s not as much distinction for you! Not that I think you’re saying giving wealth away is fun — although you might be?
Anyway, I am glad that we both value written interaction and get to have these conversations, and I’m glad that Substack exists as a capitalist enterprise allowing me to pay you for that value. I do sort of hope the regulators who brought us stuff like the credit card interchange fees and monopolistic pricing of web services and whatnot that take a cut of all that would get reincarnated as beetles. Perhaps they will.
Thank you for this, Tom!
I appreciate the updated statistics about income/assets/debt in the US.
For sure, the line I quoted from the Scientific American article does not represent the entirety of the article's message OR the entire story about how much money people have, make, give, or how they feel about it or in general.
I chose it because it DOES represent the greater point of my piece of writing which is essentially "giving feels good (even if capitalism tries to make us feel like the opposite is so."
I also like the word "fulfillment," though I'm still good with "happiness" as well. I'm also a fan of "fun" (the word and concept), though I recognize that specific choices and specific definitions are potentially differently valuable (!) depending on context.
(I don't think I would say that "fun" is what people feel when they share their monetary wealth with others. But maybe some people would!)
Thanks again for sharing all that you share! Chatting with you makes me feel happy, fulfilled, fun, and more!
I appreciate you!
I cannot agree more! Please send your money to me and you will truly see less is more. It's hard for me to do this, but I am selfless.
hahaha, thank you for this!