I live in India and I am pretty poor, I hope to be middle-class/upper-middle class someday, but I have noticed something sinister from some people who are extremely privileged, they can be still be bought with money.

Lack of money makes you desperate, and paranoid, and comparison drives you crazy, hard to be morally perfect as a poor man, but I see actors who have made insane amounts of money on the backs of their Indian fans like Shahrukh Khan, Canada Kumar, Ajay Devgan, Hrithik Roshan and many more who are well-respected in the industry and who still can sell their own fans financial ruin (gambling) or death (Tobacco) in ads. I thought the point of being rich was that you could be more moral, what is the use of getting rich if you use your influence and fame to do more harm than good?

Also, all the actors mentioned above have made numerous movies about patriotism, many in their private conversations like to brag how much they “love their country… blah… blah… blah”, but yet they feel ok selling Tobacco to their fans who made them what they are.

I have a cousin who worships Shahrukh Khan and who took up Pan(Tobacco) because he was naive and because he probably thought it was “cool” since his favorite actor (on whom he has modeled all aspects of his life was selling tobacco), thankfully we were able to get him off that a few years ago, but he spent money like water and he gained worse health for it. He got off easy, many suffered financial ruin or even death. So, when is it fucking enough!? When will these people have enough money?

edit: It’s just not India, it happens everywhere (just watch CoffeeZilla to see more prime examples of this) Also, I am not saying I am perfect, if someone gave me an insane amount of money to sell Pan, I will, judge me if you will. But, I like to think if I had “enough” money, I would be immune to the attractions of blood money, I like to think I can try to be as moral as I can be then, but these people almost make me think that there is never “enough” money.

edit 2: Kurt Vonnegut’s Quote on Money is quite interesting

  • kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Greedy people are more likely to end up wealthy. Greedy people are also more likely to end up doing ethically dubious things.

    Of course, any wealth at all is unethical if you’re being honest with yourself. There’s a famous passage in the Bible.

    Jesus was out teaching his disciples or healing people- whatever he did. And a rich man comes up to him and asks

    “Jesus, I want to follow you and go to heaven. Please tell me what I should do”

    What did Jesus say? Jesus told him to a) sell all of his shit b) give that money to charity c) physically follow me around

    What did rich guy do? Have an epiphany about morality and living the good life?

    No, he cried. He cried because he didn’t actually want to let go of the good things he had for morality.

    All of us in first world nations are guilty of this to some extent. The way our world is shaped you essentially have to be unethical to survive. There are levels to it, of course. But I think your perspective is too black and white and needs a little nuance. Seem like a teenager.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I learned earlier today that paywalls are inversely associated with scams happening.

        That tells me that scamming is one of the least profitable economic activities.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Jesus saying that did not mean that it is unethical to be rich. The reason it’s hard for a rich man to enter heaven is the rich man can afford endless distractions from facing the hard problem of his own suffering.

      Poor people are more likely to encounter circumstances that they cannot survive without adapting. The ultimate adaptation to difficulty is when you find bliss in the struggle. You enter the kingdom of heaven after transcending ordeals.

      Rich people don’t transcend ordeals they just sidestep them.

      Basically rich people don’t have a cross. Well, they can have one, but it comes harder. They live cushy lives that don’t require entering heaven just to survive.

      Same reason Gautama had to go be a monk before he could be attain enlightenment. You basically don’t take the problem of suffering seriously enough to solve it, unless your suffering is great. A rich person’s suffering is the leaky roof that never collapses. A poor person’s suffering is a collapsed roof, which forces action on learning how to build a new, perfect roof.

  • pavnilschanda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t think any amount of money is enough. This is what happens when we live in a society that relies on material wealth as a source of validation instead of a means to fulfill our basic needs.

  • TheBigBrother@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Personally I think “enough money” it’s more a mindset than about physical money, you can have a lot of money and still didn’t have “enough money” or you can not have any money and at the same time have “enough money”.

  • Kache@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    In a sense, money represents all the future goods and services it can buy, and those goods and services ultimately resolve down to someone’s time and effort. Money was conceived as a formalization of IOU’s, after all.

    So it’s similar to asking whether there’s a limit to how much time and effort from (i.e. influence over) others one would want.

  • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think the only way to have “enough” money is to practice gratitude. Being poor is defined by stress, of course; I am not gonna tell you that your problems are all in your head. But when you get a better paying job, it’s easy to thoughtlessly spend more money and still end up feeling poor. So, don’t just excitedly spend all that money. Take a good look at what you appreciate about your current life and what you are proud of, and do what you need to cultivate these good things. Sometimes it is surprising how many of those things are free. Sometimes they need a bit of money to grow.

    The other thing is that each time you cross a moral line, it gets easier to do so again. This is why i do not drink and will never drink. I think the same goes for accepting sponsorships from tobacco companies and other kinds of corruption. And of course being rich naturally shields you from the consequences of these decisions if you let it.

    • xavier666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I consider myself rich. This is how i have quantified it

      • Rich enough to avail public transport
      • Rich enough to eat home-cooked meals (enough time to purchase the items as well)
      • Rich enough to spend time on the gym to improve my health
      • Rich enough to spend time on my hobbies (gaming)
      • Rich enough to have spare time to spend with my loved ones
      • Rich enough to afford a nationalized healthcare plan
      • Rich enough to plan a investment technique so that I can retire peacefully

      I am extremely privileged. Sometimes I wonder if I even deserve it. I don’t think i will require any more money at this point. But people around me will call me middle-class because i’m not hustling enough. I don’t care to be honest; i’m at peace.

      • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        My standards are a bit lower than yours (I don’t mind public transport because it’s good enough for my needs) but other than that, I am now realising how privileged I am. By standard social definitions, I’m a broke student, but looking at it from this point of view, I’m one of the richest people I know.

        • xavier666@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          By standard social definitions, I’m a broke student

          This, i believe, is one of the biggest faults of society/social media which is not discussed enough. We are always chasing an unreachable goal of success which makes us constantly depressed.

          I don’t mind public transport because it’s good enough for my needs

          I mostly use public transport other than scenarios where it’s just not feasible (catching a flight at 6-7 am). What I meant to say is that I am fortunate enough to be in an area which has good public transport.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I think we can put a specific maximum for a comfortable western lifestyle. You can certainly argue that a comfortable western lifestyle is already far and away better than most of the people on Earth will ever see. This is something of an arbitrary point where past this, most of us are going to agree that it’s excessive.

    It’s USD 10 million.

    Why? Let’s start with the Trinity study:

    https://thepoorswiss.com/updated-trinity-study/

    The original looked at a standard retirement portfolio and asked how much you can withdraw over a thirty year retirement. It took market data from 1925 through 1995 (the updated version linked above goes to 2023) and then checked a thirty year window over that entire period with various withdrawal rates.

    What it found is that if you withdraw 4% of the portfolio the first year, and increasing it by inflation each subsequent year, it’s highly unlikely the portfolio will run out in the 30 year window. The time period covers has market ups and downs, high inflation and low, and this 4% stays.

    The updated study above says a 3.5% withdraw had a high chance of lasting 50 years.

    Lets play it ultra safe and put it at 2.5%. With $10M, we’ll have $250,000/year to play with, and our rules adjust that for inflation.

    (Median household income in Manhattan is $128k)[https://www.point2homes.com/US/Neighborhood/NY/Manhattan-Demographics.html]. We’re pulling almost twice that. I feel comfortable saying a person can live nicely in any city on this income.

    So there you go: $10M. If you want a 100% tax bracket, that’s a good place to put it. Any more money past that is just a game that hurts everyone else.

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      So is that $10M per person or family or family generation? I think the part where things start to spiral is when someone has a few kids who themselves have a few kids each and then add in the spouses. Even at 2 kids per generation and only the first Gen kids have spouses and you’re up to 10 people or $100M.

  • howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    There’s no hard line between “not enough” and “enough”. More is always better. It’s just a question of whether the gains are worth the effort.

    Consider Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If we say that being able to satisfy physiological needs is “enough”, you still need to ask: with that probability and for what duration of time? Nothing is guaranteed in life, but as you gain more money, you get asymptotically closer to that 100% probability of satisfying all physiological needs for the duration of a human lifetime. What if you want to provide this guarantee for your children? Your extended family? Your local community? Then you’ll need even more.

    Let’s say you’ve satisfied all levels of needs but the last one: self-actualization. That final level can be a huge money sink. Are you an artist that wants to express your idea exactly as they appear in your mind? You’ll need a lot of resources to acquire relevant material, or to pay others to work with you on these projects. Are you a scientist who’s interested in fundamental research and gaining a better understanding of the universe? Again, you need lots of money for your scientific equipment and for paying other people to help you.

    Then you look at how hard it is to acquire more money. If you’re out doing a 9-5 every day and getting paid hourly for your work, that’s a high effort. You probably wouldn’t want to keep doing that if you know with 95% certainty that you have enough money to survive your remaining days. Now think about someone taking a bribe. In many cases, it’s extremely low effort. You’re already working your 9-5 anyway, but someone is now paying you extra to not do your job? Win-win. What about ad reads? Again, you’re already working in front of the camera anyway. This is just a question of what you do in front of said camera. Ad reads are probably one of the easiest options, no matter how questionable the product is.


    What each person wants out of life is going to be very different from one another. Maybe you only care about having enough to take care of yourself, but someone else may need to care for many other people. One person may be okay with a quiet carefree life, another wants to fix all the problems they find, and another wants to enjoy all the luxuries life has to offer. How far you go is largely dependent on the effort required to get there.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    It depends on the person.

    I think they, for the majority of people, there is a rough number that could be derived from a standard of living they would want and not have to work. It isn’t a common number across people as people want different things.

    That said, there are some people for whom there isn’t a number to satisfy them. Wealth becomes a high score to measure against others. For them, there is no good enough.

  • Nighed@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Part of the problem is that most people will spend most of their time around people of a similar wealth level. They will therefore always be around people richer than themselves and generally see less people that are much poorer (at least in a personal context).

    This means that ‘rich’ people don’t feel rich. (Unless they are self aware enough to realise it). It also means that your references for morals etc are now other rich people rather than ‘normal’ people (although it’s normal to them!)

    Therefore, they always want to acquire more money, and their references for how to go about that are the richer people who have already done similar things.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    When i am convinced that my children will each have at least enough money for a good education and a home of their own. If my next twenty years are as successful as my last twenty years, then I’ll have enough money only after i can also fund my grandchildrens’ educations.

    It’s kind of a shit world that we’re leaving for the next generations. I’ll try to look out for mine before i fuck off to the great beyond.

  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I don’t know, but I wonder the same. I’m in the US and work for a guy that has tens of millions of dollars. He still spends all day in the office 6 days a week. To be fair, I don’t think he does it for the money, exactly, but I can’t understand why he keeps working at all.

  • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Money only amplifies who you are and what you’re able to do. I’m quite comfortable, but I like to build things and make companies grow, and solve technical problems. I don’t really want to sit back and just do nothing - in fact I’d love a partner to help me do a bit more relaxing - but when left to my own devices I am always learning some new skill or refining some process or generally trying to make the world around me a little better.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ll leave this here.

    The happiest nations of the world aren’t obsessed with chasing money and hoarding it because they’ve been supported by their neighbours from birth to where they’re working and supporting their own neighbours. So many of the things that Americans hoard money to try and prevent are just … handled … by everyone’s neighbour, anonymously. The knowledge that this coordination and ‘smoothing’ of stressful troubles is done anonymously, regularly, and unilaterally, serves to reduce a lot of the effects of food insecurity and health insecurity and shelter insecurity. They have a system that works, and it’s shown to be reliable, and people are more calm.

    So I’m not going to say how they achieve that, except “find the objectively-ranked happiest nations of the world and either move there or convince your government to do what they’re doing” and I’ll move on. It’s not hard, but you’re going to go through stages of disbelief (nah, that can’t work because people will cheat), bargaining (can I cheat please?), etc, and either you’ll be ultimately frustrated at the fact that your locale just can’t get there, or you’ll be moving to the locales where they’re doing it.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      I just want to add that a substantial social safety net doesn’t have to be a loss of freedom. You can keep it broad and level and market activity can happen above it while still processing information.

      As a libertarians, I often argue with other libertarians about this. To me, being a libertarian is about making liberty the highest value to be sought by governmental design. A reduction of risk for everyone across the board increases liberty. It leaves people free to engage with others as they see fit and to seek profit wherever they will.

      That calm thing you’re talking about is huge. One of the prerequisites of anything that can be called freedom is the ability to think clearly, and science has shown that the more stress and uncertainty a person is under chronically, they less clearly they can think. Freedom means being able to do what you choose, and people can’t really choose if they’re sleep deprived, full of adrenalin and cortisol. Like, the psychological literature calls that “ego depletion”, and with good reason. A person whose willpower budget is always drained, and therefore can’t control themselves, is not a free person.

      Never underestimate the ability of a few good policies to increase individual liberty. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.