anything else on your agenda (career, hobby etc). — Benj96

When I saw the question, it made me think that what I want is just a continuation of what I have. That's not quite contentment: I am not satisfied with what I have done; I am ambitious to do more. But there's nothing I wish to acquire* to enable that. That's why a hobby is very different from money, or a career, or possessions.

I like reading, learning, creating, and seeing. For that sort of thing, having and wanting are much the same. If I want to learn about, I don't know, medieval Japan, I have everything I need to do that, but it's still an aspiration. Time, I suppose, is the only thing I want more of**.

*Not quite true. I'd like a boat.
**And a boat.

I meant no judgement. It just surprised me.

The theory that money makes people happier has to account for the happiness of people who have not a pot to piss in. How do the poor manage to be happy--enough poor people are happy enough to make the question worth asking. — Bitter Crank

But how do we know those poor people are happy? Because of pictures in National Geographic where poor people are smiling?

Everyone seems to know that happiness does not come from wealth and that a rewarding life is generally found outside of money and possessions. — Tom Storm

I personally do not know anyone who believes that. Everyone I know is either rich, striving to get rich, or bemoaning not being rich.

Hmmm, haven't looked at a National Geographic in decades. No. The idea that poor people can be happy comes from experience -- my own experience and observation, and others' observations. I am distinguishing "poor" from "immiserate"--lacking food, shelter, water, etc. The immiserate are not happy.

I personally do not know anyone who believes that. Everyone I know is either rich, striving to get rich, or bemoaning not being rich. — baker

You need to get a new circle of friends, associates, acquaintances--maybe new relatives.

"Rich" and "poor" are relative terms, of course, but I understand what you mean by "rich". I don't think it is an exclusively American phenomena, but Americans may be more deluded than some others that they CAN get rich by hard work. 'They' are not grouped together in the '1%' for nothing. The decidedly rich are a very small group--less than 1% of the population.

If you don't mind me asking, what are your career and life plans? What do you want your life to be like in 20 years--assuming the world doesn't go to hell in a big way? — Bitter Crank

Well, I can tell you what I don’t want for my life if that helps to narrow down what I do want haha.
I guess I still have a bit of the fiery anarchism of youth running through my veins - because I’m still deeply unsettled by the manipulative, coercive and controlling nature of politics and society as a whole.

I look around me and see people selling their precious time on earth for just enough money to fund their existence. As bleak as that sounds some people love their work and are quite satisfied with a meagre life and that’s fine. But I think time is more precious a commodity than money because unlike money time is not renewable. And thus, you should never convene/ accept or agree that your time is more disposable than anyone else’s. Income to life satisfaction ratio should reflect this. Either be paid little for something you love or be paid a lot for something you dread but never be paid little for something you dread.
You are given your time riches at birth and are free to spend it how you wish but you will never be given a “top up” and should never forget that you are always “spending” even when you’re “earning.”

In my country I see things like a suffocating and outdated planning process for building your own home. Someone in a suit is dictating whether, when and where you can have a home. And it’s such an arduous and longwinded task to get that permission that most opt to rent or buy something pre- built. Which comes with their own issues because the price of a home is grossly over- priced due to the lack of building as previously stated, and as for renting? Well that’s basically a mortgage except you get nothing after your 20 or so years of investment.

So I just step back for a moment and think... having considered all the elitism and rule makers in the world, and how we seem to constantly be trying to influence the behaviour of each other to suit ourselves, all of us are simply here for the first time. And all of us will be dead again and then the scales will be equalised. No dead man is more wealthy or powerful then the next. So why are we torturing each other in a rat race to the top?

I want my career to be wholesome, satisfying and “time well spent”. And I want money to serve or enable me in my career/purpose but not “be” the purpose.
I’m not particularly invested in material I prefer experiences and memory making, because again you possess those for life no one and nothing but ageing itself can take them from you. Also in the grand scheme of things one finds that 90% of their possessions are not exceptionally important or useful.
And mostly I want to be in a position of a). awareness of others and b). comfort that my needs are met in order to never find myself in a position where Im forced to sell my own pursuit for someone else’s agenda.
Career wise I’m studying medicine and two years away from graduation.

Time, I suppose, is the only thing I want more of**. — Kenosha Kid

See my previous comment above because I thought the exact same. We are all born wealthy in sense and die a poor man. But “money” is not the object of that kind of wealth

The theory that money makes people happier has to account for the happiness of people who have not a pot to piss in. How do the poor manage to be happy--enough poor people are happy enough to make the question worth asking. — Bitter Crank

I believe the poor’s happiness is accounted for by “agency” rather than “money” and its simply that 90% of us subscribe to the capitalist regime that it merely “appears” that money provides us with happiness when really it gives us agency - the power to chose what we want for ourselves.

Think about it - both the poor and wealthy inherently have agency of their own. Because the wealthy have the financial means to choose what they wish to do and usually free up their time by using some of that money to offset their enterprise into the hands of assistants and managers.
The poor on the other hand often have a). Free time if they’re unemployed b). Social welfare from the state - bare needs are met c). A strong sense of community due to having that time to develop relationships. d). A lack of ambition - their sense of value and purpose comes from somewhere else other than the seismic monetary/ career ladder for which the vast majority of people are competing. By choosing a non- competitive life path they have surprisingly more opportunities and less regulation and restriction.

It’s the middle class that tend to be the least happy. Because they have the ideals, dreams and ambitions aligned with the upper class, but they are also the largest fraction and so have the greatest competition to get there, and because businesses don’t run themselves they also have to concede to investing the most time out of their life to earn a salary. Between all of these things they can often erode their identity and their agency if they can’t manage to find a work- life balance or manage their expectations.

Also it is of note that those with the least sense of agency are very often people with depression. The whole “what is the point”, “there’s no hope” etc. The most unhappy are those that feel they have absolutely zero impact, value, or worth in the world or place all of it on untenable values that they have repeatedly failed to achieve and therefore feel unsuccessful.

You can very easily be “successfully” poor or average.