Poverty Paradox- who is rich

[brianw]

Found this interesting article

The Poverty Paradox
Robert Wells is motorcycling through the Americas on a journey to explore creativity, the arts, society and education. Spending time recently in Guatemala and Hondurus has helped him develop a new perspective on the relationship between wealth and happiness. In this article, Robert questions our conventional assumptions about poverty.
________________________________________

MOD EDIT: Removed giant copy/paste.  Please link to original material.

Here is the original shorter summary article the OP copy/pasted:
http://jupiterstravellers.org/project/the-poverty-paradox/

And the full article on the author's blog:
http://culturaladventurer.com/2012/02/rich-and-poor/

[gooki]

Thanks for posting.

[marty998]

Agree good post.

Best things in life are free.

[mrpercentage]

Right. I am certain that conventional ideas of happiness are distorted in our society. (US)

I mean we used to knock on the neighbors door- then it went to call- then it went text- then it went to "who are they?"

I took my son to Disneyland and spent (I would really rather not tell you kind of) money on hotel, travel, food, and tickets. Do you know what my sons favorite vacation has been so far? Camping. Woke up freezing wondering if a bear was going to eat us--- but its his favorite.

No event ticket gives me the joy of my youngest smiling at me. So in my own way I totally agree. I want to be able to throw every clock in my house out. That day I will know that I am living on my terms. I will not do anything until I am ready to do it.

[Left]

Like the story of fisherman vs business tycoon who retires to same village to fish in retirement... fisherman is "poor" but does the activity his entire life....

[Louisville]

Pretty much sums up Mustachianism.

[FrugalFan]

This is something I know and get to experience sometimes in my work, but am still working on trying to apply it to our everyday lives.

[Seppia]

The thing we (vague for "average to high income people from developed nations") have and people in Guatemala/whatever other "poor" country don't is choice, which to me is the ultimate measure of wealth.
I would not underestimate that

[GuitarStv]

I think there's a certain tendency to romanticize new and different situations.  I'm not saying that western civilization is the peak of awesomeness (yep, tons of problems), but that first post really rings with the 'noble savage' mindset.

[Seppia]

Agree 100%

[Russ]

Does wealth in choice lead to any more happiness than wealth in possessions? IS CHOICE EVEN REAL?!?!?!

Anyway, any of y'all could give it all up and go live on a mountain if you feel that strongly about it. That nobody does says a bit.

[FrugalFan]

I agree that we should not romanticize, but instead pay attention to the idea that material things do not lead to happiness (on the other hand, knowing where your next meal is coming from is pretty important). This summer our family of four lived on a remote island in a tiny cabin containing just our beds, and we ate our meals in a larger building with a kitchen and a small living room (shared between 5 or so researchers and 12 undergraduate students). There was no running water and only solar power in the main building (none in ours). We were happy there. Yes it took 3 hours to wash laundry by hand once a week, and yes it was too cold at night, and yes the cold bucket showers were a challenge, and yes the outhouses are a bit annoying with a baby and a just-potty-trained two year old, but we were still very happy. And there was a definite community feel that I find lacking back at home in our busy lives of full time jobs and daycare. I would like to find a way to bring together the best of both worlds, and feel that mustashianism can lead us in the right direction, but we're just not there yet.

[Seppia]

Does wealth in choice lead to any more happiness than wealth in possessions? IS CHOICE EVEN REAL?!?!?!

Anyway, any of y'all could give it all up and go live on a mountain if you feel that strongly about it. That nobody does says a bit.

I believe you misunderstood my comment, or maybe I did not explain myself well (sorry English is not my native language).
I'm exactly stating that we could give up all and go live in Guatemala.
Those in Guatemala cannot choose to live our life.
So we have more choices/options.

[2ndTimer]

Having lived for a while in Mexico, the Hub and I frequently marvel at the fact that the stuff in our house would be the basis for several small businesses there.

[human]

Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world so not sure I would live there myself. However as others have stated we have plenty of options and could choose to live a simple life if we wish. I know I'm guilty of dreaming of getting a small cabin in the Yukon territory one day . . .

[FI40]

Just saying we have choice so we are better off is not a good argument, to me.

For instance, other folks have the same choices I do, but they are unhappy with their situation because of self inflicted destruction of their finances.

Also, the fact that many of us don't go live in Guatemala could be because most people are simply comfortable with living in the same place most of their lives. We aren't all nomads, willing to give up all our family and friends at the drop of a hat. If you take away all my family and friends, make me multilingual and have no cultural identity, I'd go live in Burma - apparently the happiest place on earth according to some happiness index.

I think stories like this are great to remind us about our priorities in life and to keep things in perspective.

[Russ]

Does wealth in choice lead to any more happiness than wealth in possessions? IS CHOICE EVEN REAL?!?!?!

Anyway, any of y'all could give it all up and go live on a mountain if you feel that strongly about it. That nobody does says a bit.

I believe you misunderstood my comment, or maybe I did not explain myself well (sorry English is not my native language).
I'm exactly stating that we could give up all and go live in Guatemala.
Those in Guatemala cannot choose to live our life.
So we have more choices/options.

Only the first part was directed to you. What's the difference between happiness from choice and happiness from possessions? They seem interchangeable to me

[Seppia]

I didn't say having alternatives automatically leads to happiness.
It certainly helps pursue it though.
It's like F-U money, it gives you the opportunity to do what you prefer - you are not / less prisoner of external elements.

If the guy in Guatemala would love to live in NYC he's out of luck.
If I want to move to Guatemala I can move tomorrow no problem.

[FI40]

I didn't say having alternatives automatically leads to happiness.

I never said you did. I'm just thinking that the implication that choices are always better misses the point, and so it's not a good argument to make, to me.

If the guy in Guatemala would love to live in NYC he's out of luck.
If I want to move to Guatemala I can move tomorrow no problem.

You're right, I just think that's the obvious and maybe cynical take on it.

[Kouhri]

Surely one of the nice things about travel in FIRE is that you can go and see all these different ways of living and choose the one that resonates with you the most. Aka you can choose to pursue happiness, that sort of freedom is priceless

 

What's the difference between happiness from choice and happiness from possessions? They seem interchangeable to me

I think thats the key difference. You can choose to change. Aka you have to exercise that choice. Whereas happiness from possessions in my mind at least is nothing alike.

[arebelspy]

Does wealth in choice lead to any more happiness than wealth in possessions? IS CHOICE EVEN REAL?!?!?!

Anyway, any of y'all could give it all up and go live on a mountain if you feel that strongly about it. That nobody does says a bit.

I thought this was really insightful.

Does wealth in choice lead to any more happiness than wealth in possessions? IS CHOICE EVEN REAL?!?!?!

Anyway, any of y'all could give it all up and go live on a mountain if you feel that strongly about it. That nobody does says a bit.

I believe you misunderstood my comment, or maybe I did not explain myself well (sorry English is not my native language).
I'm exactly stating that we could give up all and go live in Guatemala.
Those in Guatemala cannot choose to live our life.
So we have more choices/options.

Only the first part was directed to you. What's the difference between happiness from choice and happiness from possessions? They seem interchangeable to me

But then the followup disappointed me.

I think I interpreted your first comment differently than you did.

There is no difference, but the question is can you get equal happiness (or as easily) from both?

If it's yes, there's no difference. If no, they're not interchangeable.

[brianw]

 " I mean we used to knock on the neighbors door- then it went to call- then it went text- then it went to "who are they?""

good quote in earlier post...

Also maybe the 'noble savage' idea isn't all its made out to be.. agreed. I would imagine that there a numerous problems beneath the surface of things.

but i find these types of stories providing perspective on my life. i suspect the core underlying issue is losing my humanity in the hurly burly of city life. 

So whats the answer?...for me its living the good life...how do i do that? reduce stress, simplify, engage, play, look out for those around me and think (keep wide awake to what is going on all levels) balance i suppose.

[GuitarStv]

" I mean we used to knock on the neighbors door- then it went to call- then it went text- then it went to "who are they?"

That's actually the part of the article that pissed me off the most.  You don't need to get all medieval living to rectify this problem.  How about you go and knock on the neighbors damned door and stop whining?  :P

[Russ]

Does wealth in choice lead to any more happiness than wealth in possessions? IS CHOICE EVEN REAL?!?!?!

Anyway, any of y'all could give it all up and go live on a mountain if you feel that strongly about it. That nobody does says a bit.

I thought this was really insightful.

Does wealth in choice lead to any more happiness than wealth in possessions? IS CHOICE EVEN REAL?!?!?!

Anyway, any of y'all could give it all up and go live on a mountain if you feel that strongly about it. That nobody does says a bit.

I believe you misunderstood my comment, or maybe I did not explain myself well (sorry English is not my native language).
I'm exactly stating that we could give up all and go live in Guatemala.
Those in Guatemala cannot choose to live our life.
So we have more choices/options.

Only the first part was directed to you. What's the difference between happiness from choice and happiness from possessions? They seem interchangeable to me

But then the followup disappointed me.

I think I interpreted your first comment differently than you did.

There is no difference, but the question is can you get equal happiness (or as easily) from both?

If it's yes, there's no difference. If no, they're not interchangeable.

It would be neat if you could tell me how you interpreted it then?

Wasn't meant to be insightful, just a question. Not a statement of "they are interchangeable, and you get different happiness from each", more a request for refutation of " they are interchangeable" with a suggested method of "please show that you get more happiness from one"

Does that clear it up or make it worse?
I think they are interchangeable and you get equal happiness from each

[arebelspy]

Well the first paragraph I read as an argument for determinism, and going way deeper than this thread was intending.  The second paragraph I thought was pretty poignant.

Actions speak louder than words, and it's all well and good for the author to say simplicity is better, we should hang out with our neighbors, live like that, etc. And how many tens of thousands read that article and agreed, yet did nothing?  So did they really agree?  Cause any one of us could sell all our things and move tomorrow.

There's a few of us that do it. I think you recently quit your job and are hoboing around in a van, living the simple life you want?  That's awesome.

Why aren't more people doing that?  Fear. Values. Lip service to the article's ideas, but not actually believing it.

That's how I read the second paragraph.

But then the followup was the standard "what makes you happier, stuff or experiences"--research shows experiences, generally, but stuff can as well. They're both useful in their ways, I agree.

[Russ]

But then the followup was the standard "what makes you happier, stuff or experiences"--research shows experiences, generally, but stuff can as well. They're both useful in their ways, I agree.

Who said anything about experiences? We were talking about choice.

Now that we're talking about it though, I don't think that there's a useful distinction between "happiness from xperiences" and "happiness from stuff", since when people say "happiness from stuff" what they really mean is "happiness from the experience of owning stuff".

I am still developing my theory of how happiness is obtained, more to come as I think of it

[Russ]

Now that we're talking about it though, I don't think that there's a useful distinction between "happiness from xperiences" and "happiness from stuff", since when people say "happiness from stuff" what they really mean is "happiness from the experience of owning stuff".

A better way to put this: all the research shows is that most people enjoy some experiences more than others. I could probably conduct an equivalent study that shows most people enjoy the experience of owning stuff more than they enjoy the experience of going to the dentist

This also does not mean everybody enjoys the colloquial "experiences" (skiing, whatever) more than owning stuff. Collectors for example. A comprehensive theory of the cause of happiness should account for this

[arebelspy]

I agree.

I think the correct way to put it, to account for those studies, is that people get more happiness from experiences they enjoy than buying stuff they think (or are led to believe) will bring them happiness.

It's not so much that stuff CAN'T bring you happiness, but that we're told to buy certain things, and buying them for society's expectations aren't necessarily the things that will make us happy.

[mrpercentage]

arebelspy you ever watch Happiness on Netflix? It's good

[Russ]

I think the correct way to put it, to account for those studies, is that people get more happiness from experiences they enjoy than buying stuff they think (or are led to believe) will bring them happiness.

It's not so much that stuff CAN'T bring you happiness, but that we're told to buy certain things, and buying them for society's expectations aren't necessarily the things that will make us happy.

FTFY:
I think the correct way to put it, to account for those studies, is that people get more happiness from experiences they enjoy than experiences they think (or are led to believe) will bring them happiness.

Again, no need to call out "stuff" in particular. The above is equally true and more widely applicable, and I think more likely to help people who hear it as it's not attacking a particular aspect of their life.

We are told to experience certain things too (university? Disneyland?), and I don't think it's helpful to remove these from a conversation about enjoying life as a whole.

[Russ]

I mean I think we agree, I'm just being picky

[Russ]

Also still curious where you picked up the experience bit as opposed to choice. At the very least it will help me write better next time

[PKFFW]

Disregarding for the moment any deep philosophical discussion about determinism because if one subscribes to that theory then there's no point to discussing what brings happiness as we can't do anything different anyway.  So that debate is a useless discussion in my opinion.

I will say, assuming no determinism, that in my personal opinion, happiness is a choice.  If you want to be happy there is absolutely nothing stopping you from simply being happy regardless of your circumstances.  As the old adage goes....."If someone spits on you, they don't make you angry, they make you wet."  You choose to be angry in that situation instead of choosing to be happy.

With that out of the way........

I do not think the point about choice is that having choice brings happiness in and of itself.  The point is that having choice may lead to more likelihood of achieving happiness.

The poor person in Guatemala without the choice to up and move to the USA or to fix the house so they aren't freezing all winter or to buy new shoes so the walk to work each day is less uncomfortable for example, may very well be happy as they are.  However if they are not happy because of these circumstances, they have very little choice or ability to change it and achieve happiness.

On the other hand if a rich person in the USA is unhappy due to their circumstances they have choices available to them that may, if chosen, lead to greater happiness for them.

So no, choice itself doesn't bring happiness.  In fact studies have shown that too much choice actually causes a feeling of dissatisfaction and unhappiness in many people.  However I would argue that having the choice available to explore other means of achieving happiness is a better position to be in than having no choice available at all.

[arebelspy]

Disregarding for the moment any deep philosophical discussion about determinism because if one subscribes to that theory then there's no point to discussing what brings happiness as we can't do anything different anyway.  So that debate is a useless discussion in my opinion.

Well that's not true--the point of the discussion would be the antecedent that makes you do other things, which could lead to greater happiness.

You just can't choose if you have the discussion, or not. It's determined by all the antecedent causes.  ;)

[patrickza]

I work in the developing world, and live in a country with a large disparity of wealth. What always strikes me is how everything is relative. You don't feel rich compared to the man in the Ferrari next to you, but then you go to somewhere like Zimbabwe and Malawi to do an assessment with questions like do you own a chair, or a table, or anything productive like an axe or a sickle and things get put into place very quickly.

I'm all for the keep it light and simple way of life, but that can only work if your basic needs are met. Is your family able to live safely, and do they have enough to eat. If that can't be achieved then there's pretty much no chance for a satisfying life.

Trying to figure out a way to cut the costs of your broadband, or reduce the fees on your investments is really a first world problem!

[PKFFW]

Disregarding for the moment any deep philosophical discussion about determinism because if one subscribes to that theory then there's no point to discussing what brings happiness as we can't do anything different anyway.  So that debate is a useless discussion in my opinion.

Well that's not true--the point of the discussion would be the antecedent that makes you do other things, which could lead to greater happiness.

You just can't choose if you have the discussion, or not. It's determined by all the antecedent causes.  ;)

:-)

True I guess.........but..........

Whether the discussion is "useful" or not I guess would depend on the outcomes it causes.  I'm going to assume "useful" for the purposes of this discussion means leading to actions that produce greater happiness.  Taking an extreme example, would you say the discussion was "useful" if it led you to commit suicide as a result of being convinced there is no point to life?  Or led to becoming a drug addict, living destitute on the streets for the same reason?

So I guess I could agree the discussion would be useful provided it led to greater happiness, otherwise it was useless at best and detrimental at worst. :)

[arebelspy]

There's no such thing as useful.

If we ignore that though, if you assume the outcome of every conversation is negative, you must have a very bleak life.  My life has been getting better and better, so I assume the probability for any discussion is more likely to improve my life than make it worse.  Especially if it lead to more knowledge, truth, etc.

Thus worth discussing. :)

[PKFFW]

There's no such thing as useful.

Yes, assuming determinism, there is no such thing as useful.  Ergo, assuming determinism, my original assertion that the discussion is useless is correct. :)

If we ignore that though, if you assume the outcome of every conversation is negative, you must have a very bleak life.  My life has been getting better and better, so I assume the probability for any discussion is more likely to improve my life than make it worse.  Especially if it lead to more knowledge, truth, etc.

Thus worth discussing. :)

I don't assume the outcome of every conversation is negative.  I stated the usefulness of conversation that you can not control having or not would be determined by the results it produces.

An analogy......you implement a process at work designed to make things more efficient and lead to greater profit.  Instead it makes things less efficient and leads to less profit.  Would you say the new process is useful?  I would argue the new process, based on the results achieved, is useless or worse.  If the results from the very same process were different the usefulness of the process may be different.

[arebelspy]

There's no such thing as useful.

Yes, assuming determinism, there is no such thing as useful.  Ergo, assuming determinism, my original assertion that the discussion is useless is correct. :)

Hah, touche.

If we ignore that though, if you assume the outcome of every conversation is negative, you must have a very bleak life.  My life has been getting better and better, so I assume the probability for any discussion is more likely to improve my life than make it worse.  Especially if it lead to more knowledge, truth, etc.

Thus worth discussing. :)

I don't assume the outcome of every conversation is negative.  I stated the usefulness of conversation that you can not control having or not would be determined by the results it produces.

Yes, that is how it's determined, assuming you're a utilitarian. Even if that's the case though, since you can't know the future, at best you can put odds on it based on previous info.  And if most of your conversations (especially of this type) have led to better outcomes, it would make sense to guess that the utility of this discussion would be positive.

I have by far had a better life by having philosophical discussions, so I find them useful. I have already gotten enjoyment out of this one, for example. :)

[PKFFW]

Yes, that is how it's determined, assuming you're a utilitarian. Even if that's the case though, since you can't know the future, at best you can put odds on it based on previous info.  And if most of your conversations (especially of this type) have led to better outcomes, it would make sense to guess that the utility of this discussion would be positive.

I have by far had a better life by having philosophical discussions, so I find them useful. I have already gotten enjoyment out of this one, for example. :)

That's a fair point and I agree with your assertion regarding odds based on past information.  Also, I thoroughly enjoy these sorts of discussions to.  Even if they are useless from a utilitarian point of view. :)

However, it begs the question, how do you know the results are from the discussion and not from some other antecedent cause?  Or some combination of antecedent causes that you have no control over?  Perhaps the better life you are enjoying may have been even better had you never had those discussions.  After all, you can't run the experiment again to isolate factors. 

Of course, assuming determinism, it doesn't actually matter because you are going to have the conversation or not based on antecedent causes so the point is moot.  And your life is going to be what it is going to be regardless.

[arebelspy]

I don't know, but if I feel like it helped, then I don't know it didn't!

And determinism does not imply fatalism.

[PKFFW]

I don't know, but if I feel like it helped, then I don't know it didn't!

And determinism does not imply fatalism.

I know Wikipedia is sometimes not the most valid source but being unfamiliar with the specifics of fatalism I did a google and read the first link........

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatalism

"Fatalism generally refers to any of the following ideas:

1: The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do.[1] Included in this is that man has no power to influence the future, or indeed, his own actions.[2] This belief is very similar to predeterminism."

I'm not seeing a lot of difference there.  Seems a different way of saying that because of the antecedent causes we can only do what we actually did and nothing else.  So effectively we can not influence our own actions.

[arebelspy]

Google Determinism is not Fatalism for people who can put it much more eloquently than I. :)

[expatartist]

I'd go live in Burma - apparently the happiest place on earth according to some happiness index.

You might've meant Bhutan? Burma's junta may have technically been overthrown, but they've got plenty of problems even with Suu Kyi at the helm. And Bhutan's no paradise for the local people, either: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bhutan/10217936/Bhutans-gross-national-happiness-masks-problems-says-new-prime-minister.html

Also, the blog post is your naive typical travelers trope. We sail through the third world with our first world problems, carrying fat pocketbooks with contingency plans and resources and health coverage unimaginable to the poor people we 'admire', and have embassies scattered around the world who can help us as soon as we flash our passports. Writing like this is a not just romantic condescension, it's the flip side of the missionary-esque 'oh let's help those savages who have nothing', and frankly helps no one at all.