The Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs has been one of the most widely used models and theories that have been applied to human psychology in terms of human motivation. It brings to light the reality that satisfying a person's unique need in some way encourages them to exert more effort in order to receive more or higher degrees of fulfillment.
The simple meaning of this theory is that in order to go through the many stages of growth, there is always a drive towards the fulfilling of certain fundamental requirements (needs), and these needs are always changing at different levels of a person's life. This theory can be stated as follows: aWhen one of a person's needs is satisfied, it ceases to be a source of motivation; individuals then move on to the next level in the pyramid and work toward satisfying that a higher component of their needs.
As can be seen in the above figure, human needs fall into one of two primary categories: either deficiency needs or growth needs. Consider someone like Bill Gates or anyone else who is affluent as an illustration. According to Maslow's proposition, you cannot encourage such people by making them promises of meeting their deficiency needs because they have progressed over that level of need.
Food, a sense of belonging, and esteem, amongst other things, are all needs that people have. However, the majority of affluent and renowned people have grown above the need for food and the fundamentals of life, and as a result, they cannot be swayed by things like that. They have to satiate their need for growth.
On the other hand, there is an intriguing truth that may be found at each level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If we gave it a great deal of careful thought, we could give each of its tiers a financial component. It would appear that a person organically moves up the pyramid of needs when their financial situation improves with more money. When there is more money available, it is much simpler to satisfy the requirements of each higher degree of need.
While it is true that there are other factors associated with the various stages of one's development, money does appear to play a substantial part in the majority of these cases. This is the case because, in the world we live in today, money may serve as a substitute for practically anything, including friendships and other relationships, connections, feelings (such as love and hate), positions, and statuses. The only thing that really matters to the world is how much money you make and how much you can bring to the table. Everything else is largely irrelevant.
Some academics subscribe to the school of thought that asserts having more money makes one more motivated and satisfies some demands in the short term. This might be the case, but as a species, we humans are better at focusing on the here and now than we are at planning for the future (looking long-term). Therefore, based on what I've seen, I feel that as long as there is money, a person can simply purchase their way to the top of Maslow's hierarchy.
So, what's in it for those who are not wealthy/affluent? According to this definition, persons who are considered to be poor are those whose income is so low that they are only able to afford the most fundamental aspects of human existence and who are, in essence, merely scraping by to meet their basic needs to a proper degree. If the only things that your money can buy you are some food and shelter, along with attracting a few people to you and possibly providing you with some level of self-esteem, then you are like the majority of people in this world. According to Maslow, you cannot be considered rich, and you need more money to be able to get to the top.
While getting to the top may seem like a worthwhile goal, I believe, primarily, as we need to survive as humans are those items in the bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and if you are able to satisfy those basic needs, you are doing well for yourself.
