"Wealth is not how much money is in the bank but how readily we can influence the needs of others."
In an earlier post where we discussed delayed gratification, I gave the analogy of the small candy bar now and the big candy bar later. With regard to financial health I argued that we should forgo the immediate pleasure of spending money in favor of investing with an expectation of earning a return in the future. Being savvy consumers, we opt to save and invest in hopes of achieving that big candy bar later. But at the end of the day, it is still a candy bar. What is the nature and significance of the financial reward signified by said candy bar? Is it just more money, or is it the things money can buy? This is what we will examine presently.
You see, the reward of more money later still leaves in question the following: What is money and why is it important to us? Why is more money better than less? What does having money allow us to be, do or have? These are philosophical questions that only the individual can answer. Money may mean different things to different people, and that is fine. However, if you do not have a clear answer for yourself, you are likely to suffer pain and confusion no matter how financially well off you appear to be. I want to call into question some deeply imbedded beliefs we seem to hold in hopes of getting you to reevaluate the significance of money in your life. We all agree more money is better, but why? How many of us also believe more money means more problems? Do we hold conflicting views of the same subject? It seems the reward of more money later only gets us more expensive possessions - cars, homes, clothes, vacations, etc. There’s nothing wrong with having nice things. The danger comes when we equate possessions to higher social status. This is a fallacy - that our possessions determine our social status and further, that our status determines our self worth. This is worth exploring further. Consider the following:
(1) Is it possible to have status without having possessions?
(2) Is it possible to have self-worth without having social status?
I can easily give a counterexample to the first one. Gandhi didn’t need to be financially rich in order to be famous. The second assertion, however, I cannot as easily refute. That is to say one may have self-worth having no status whatsoever. It appears our self-esteem is intimately connected to our reputation. Looking deeper we find that other people’s opinion of us is actually a projection of our own mind, so it is futile to concern ourselves with others’ opinions. We can not assume we are either universally loved or hated. We don’t need to be loved by everyone, but we do need to feel that our contribution is valued within a community. This is where we derive meaning and a purpose for living and might actually be our most primary purpose of life. Without a sense of community we lack the motivation needed to continue living. Isolation is almost certain death. A monk who secludes up into the mountains may experience serenity for a while, but how long will he survive without social contact of any kind? He will likely make friends with the other creatures to fulfill this primal urge. No one is ever truly alone. It is here we arrive at our first conclusion: It is neither money nor possessions we are after but merely validation from our peers. Money is the tool and resource through which to interact with the community, and hence, money is construed as a symbol of virtue. Money is the scoreboard of your social impact, and this perpetuates the logic that says more is better. I would argue though that money does not necessarily equate to status but rather to the potential to have influence. It is only by our impact on society that we gain status. Does the fact money equates to influence suggest that the inverse is true - that the lack of money implies a lack of influence? I think not.
In addition to buying possessions, money gives us the freedom to choose how we spend our time. The game of money is a two-sided coin determined both by what we earn as well as what we spend. We don’t need a lot of money if we don’t plan to spend a lot. If we give more value than we consume, we unlock the recipe for wealth. Wealth is not how much money is in the bank but how readily we can influence the needs of others. As long as we are needy and dependent upon others, we are not wealthy. Wealth is financial freedom and self-sovereignty. The more we are able to give, the more valuable we are to society. We don’t actually need money; we need food, shelter, and love. The degree to which we provide those things to others determines our social net worth.
I will leave you with two bits of advice. First, be mindful of how you spend your time. What kinds of experiences do you deem valuable? The kinds of experiences you want to have determines how much money you need to earn. Second, choose wisely which communities to become involved with, which you want to see flourish, and from which you may reap the rewards it has to offer. The quality of your social ties strongly correlates with your sense of purpose and self worth.