Do Voluntary Wage Slaves have Stockholm Syndrome?

[footenote]

On my way out of FT employment last week, I talked to many people about ER. Most moaned with jealousy, but (when I asked gently about their plans) insisted they couldn't possibly pull it off. The vast majority of the "reasons" were transparently lame.

My experiences, the common "Complainypants" retorts to MMM in mainstream media and the responses all of you hear IRL, make me wonder: Do most voluntary* wage slaves have a Stockholm Syndrome relationship with their horrid commutes, bosses, debt and unnecessary consumption?

Here's a particularly vivid example: http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/carolyn-hax-girlfriends-odd-complaint-about-beaus-freelance-career-sparks-concerns/2013/05/21/b33da7f6-b748-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

* I exclude from voluntary wage slavehood people who actually love their work-a-day jobs

[limeandpepper]

The other day, for the first time, my girlfriend expressed that she really didn’t like that I work at home. I freelance and really love it. I have a lot saved and I’m in a much better financial place than she is, which gives me a lot of latitude.

She said she couldn’t understand the perspective of someone who didn’t go into an office every day and who didn’t have to bear the burden of working under a boss. She made it clear that she wouldn’t care if I made less money, only that I had somewhere to go in the morning and that I wasn’t my own boss. She then compared me to her former boyfriends, who apparently had more “grit” and who had to work for a paycheck.

Wow... I don't understand that girlfriend at all. I love my boyfriend's freelancing lifestyle! Well, as long as he is making enough to cover his expenses and save. Clearly not an issue in that example, as the boyfriend in question is doing well financially. But yeah, in my situation, I really like how my boyfriend is at home most of the time and I can just visit pretty much whenever I want. And we get along very well, and have very similar perspectives, despite our different working arrangements (like, why should that even make a difference to our compatibility?).

Interestingly, I've told my friends that I do have a bit of a Stockholm syndrome. But it's mostly because I'm not FI yet and therefore it is comforting to have a steady paycheck, plus I like some of my colleagues, and my workplace is somewhat flexible. So I would be hesitant to take the leap and leave if I don't know if the alternative would be better than what I currently have.

[dcheesi]

A while back, I read an article that I really liked about office personalities and politics: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ [spoilers for the American version of The Office ]

Basically, it says that most peons know on some level that they're wage-slaves, but they lack the initiative or risk-tolerance (or ruthlessness) to do anything else. But there are some people who are "clueless" --that is, they truly believe in the company and the kool-aid it's peddling. I suppose that these folks could be considered Stockholm-syndrome victims, in a sense.

Of course I suspect the reality is complex than the simple categories the article lays out; most employees are probably a mix of "loser" (standard wage-slave) and "clueless", to varying degrees. Eg., people can be cynical about the organization, but still believe in their team, etc.

[Reepekg]

My wife has a very love/hate relationship with my work from home situation. She in theory knows it is great that I make plenty of income and can run errands for her in the middle of the day, but there is a subconscious gnawing gut feeling that I should be out doing something more productive with my life.

[footenote]

decheesi - Thanks for sharing The Gervais Principle (recommended). I especially enjoy the "metaphor of an organization as a psychic prison."

[totoro]

I think there is a mental barrier to leaving the workforce.  Part of it is fear of the unknown and risk aversion.  Another part is habit, leaving what is normal and expected.  I went through this when I left my firm and started on my own.  I felt guilty if I wasn't sitting in my home office during work hours.  It took me a year to let that go.

[Rural]

I have a much more flexible schedule than most workers, and I have some trouble with this. I feel guilty if I don't go in, even if I've put in 15 hours on the weekend. I get over it, don't get me wrong, but it's still there.

[chucklesmcgee]

The other day, for the first time, my girlfriend expressed that she really didn’t like that I work at home. She said she couldn’t understand the perspective of someone who didn’t go into an office every day and who didn’t have to bear the burden of working under a boss. She made it clear that she wouldn’t care if I made less money, only that I had somewhere to go in the morning and that I wasn’t my own boss. She then compared me to her former boyfriends, who apparently had more “grit” and who had to work for a paycheck.

Wow... I don't understand that girlfriend at all

I understand how she thinks but I don't agree with her. Here's why she's upset:

I. Perceiving prestige is difficult for the self-employed and raises doubts
Some women care very superficially about the prestige of a person's occupation, if only to impress their friends, income aside. A talented plumber who starts his own plumbing company will be out-earning most lawyers but will be seen as a very low prestige job and be less desirable.

If you're a paper-pusher for GE or Intel or Goldman Sachs, a girl will gain respect and recognition by saying "my boyfriend works at Goldman". If you're working at home, there's nothing to add any sort of legitimacy. "Self-employed", "works at home" or "free-lance" has also become a euphemism for "basically unemployed". Distinguishing a successful home business from unemployment is very difficult in casual conversation.

2. Perceiving salary is difficult
Some women also care a lot about how much a guy brings home. If she can tell her lady-friends "he's a neurosurgeon at such and such or he's an associate at such and such law firm", there will be an immediate recognition that the guy is high-salaried. A fairly narrow range of possible salaries can be estimated without any impolite questioning.

Income for the self-employed/home business could be anywhere from something negative or to something extraordinarily high. So there's no obvious indication of a guy's income. A frugal lifestyle will suggest a much lower income, which could further hinder a woman's perceptions of a guy.
----

It's bad-news-bears for self-employed guys trying to be well perceived by many women. "But I'm not a superficial woman! I don't care about salary/prestige, I care about the guy's personality, responsibility blublub bluh bluh." Well great, you're not one of the many. Doesn't change the fact that many women find it very important.

I've gotten such a better response from women saying that I'm in law school (with the presumption I'm hundreds of thousands in debt) instead of owning a chemical company (and clearing...300k+). Oh well.

[Mr Mark]

my mental image is of hamsters in wheels, millions of them, running away in front of a big flat screen tv eating fast food all done on credit card debt.

The wheels power wall street. Give us our services. Earn the money we get as dividends on capital. We own the wheels.

Who can blame them? We raise them from childhood to be in the wheel. We have schools dedicated to teaching them how to run. We train them to want everything, bombard them with very cleverly designed advertising, reinforced by pretty much all of society.

We actively tell them how bad it would be if they ever got out of that wheel too. no more Health care! No new cars! Living on social security!!! No money!!

And, so, most people have no idea what they would do if not in that wheel. It's like prison, or North Korea. Secure. Comfortable. Conformist. Predictable. Safe.

Which is a nice Catch 22, because if you don't ever want to get out, you'll never save to be able to. Continually paying debt and having no real net worth or passive income makes sense. Consume!

This also explains a lot of the complainy pants vitriol MMM gets. People hate the idea I just described. So they convince themselves that being in the wheel is not only the best place to be, but that hamsters can't really escape anyhow....

[footenote]

Mr Mark - You said it so well. Thanks for the hamster imagery - it's perfect.

[Zelda01]

This is a very interesting thread, and like limeandpepper said "I don't understand that girlfriend at all."  My first reaction is that she sounds like she is extremely jealous of his worklife, and she wants someone to be miserable with her.  But it may be more about status, like chucklesmcgee alludes to.

Having grown up in the rural midwest, a lot of people had their own businesses or were independent farmers, so self-employment was the norm and the ideal, at least to me.

Self-employment is not easy to arrange, and takes a lot of hard work to set up and get running smoothly.  In my case, it took 2 tries to get it right, but now that it is going well it looks easy to people on the outside. 


Also, I am fairly new to this forum.  Do people who are self-employed ever have conversations on particular sub-forums here?

[kt]

the main reaction i get when people find out i'm a freelancer is 'how do you motivate yourself?' to which i say something along the lines of, well if i don't do/take work, then i don't get paid. which i find rather motivational!
it is certainly odd to imagine not having to work at all and easy to think, well, i'd miss the routine. (i don't have colleagues to miss) as though that's what i want in life, a routine of doing stuff for other people 9 - 5, 5 days a week.

[totoro]

This is a very interesting thread, and like limeandpepper said "I don't understand that girlfriend at all."  My first reaction is that she sounds like she is extremely jealous of his worklife, and she wants someone to be miserable with her.  But it may be more about status, like chucklesmcgee alludes to.

Having grown up in the rural midwest, a lot of people had their own businesses or were independent farmers, so self-employment was the norm and the ideal, at least to me.

Self-employment is not easy to arrange, and takes a lot of hard work to set up and get running smoothly.  In my case, it took 2 tries to get it right, but now that it is going well it looks easy to people on the outside. 


Also, I am fairly new to this forum.  Do people who are self-employed ever have conversations on particular sub-forums here?

There are a number of self-employed people here but no sub-forum that I'm aware of.  You can search topics in the box in the top right though - Welcome btw :)

[Mr Mark]

Having grown up in the rural midwest, a lot of people had their own businesses or were independent farmers, so self-employment was the norm and the ideal, at least to me.

Self-employment is not easy to arrange, and takes a lot of hard work to set up and get running smoothly.  In my case, it took 2 tries to get it right, but now that it is going well it looks easy to people on the outside. 


Also, I am fairly new to this forum.  Do people who are self-employed ever have conversations on particular sub-forums here?

Good suggestion for a new subforum!

And welcome!

[simonsez]

* I exclude from voluntary wage slavehood people who actually love their work-a-day jobs

..... there are some people who are "clueless" --that is, they truly believe in the company and the kool-aid it's peddling. I suppose that these folks could be considered Stockholm-syndrome victims, in a sense.

I think if you have people who do not love their jobs but believe in the company and the "kool-aid" then sure, they have Stockholm-syndrome or are a masochist or maybe just bad at their job or in the wrong field.   I just don't know how common that truly is (no offense to janitors but would someone work at say, Tesla, as a janitor even though they hated it because they believed in the electrical car industry?  Maybe but that can't be too common).  Seems the people who don't like their jobs couldn't give two shits about the company's mission or effect in everyday life as long as it doesn't go bankrupt (hence, I'm not sure how many people have Stockholm Syndrome, most seem cognizant of their state).  I also think selection bias is at play.  You don't hear articles about Joe Schmo who is "on average, content or somewhat happy" with his job.  No, you hear about the extremes and more often than not, the negative extremes.  The love/hate work dichotomy needs to be more of a continuum.  You don't have 100 million job lovers and 100 million job haters.

I don't think all companies are evil and think that there is nothing wrong with believing in what you do.  I'm somewhat young so my thinking could change on this front.  I just think that almost always goes hand-in-hand with liking your job (which is the caveat that excludes you from the scope of this thread, which is fine).  I think it is liberating to those with some control over their finances and non-work life that decide to quit or change jobs on a whim.  That's great!  However, I think much of the "wage slavery" could be fixed by changing the attitude, the effort, the level of optimism, and giving your current job the best chance it has (which I imagine would help align the financial and non-work sectors of that person's life as well).  Then, if the job/career still does not work out, then you know at least you tried and that place simply wasn't for you.  If you still stick to that job after that point, then yes, something is wrong with the decision maker in the brain.

However, Judge Smails points out that "the world needs ditch-diggers, too" so I guess what I said is moot unless that job is comprised of only people who love digging ditches. :)

[Tyler]

Stockholm Syndrome implies that employers/consumerism/(fill in the blank) are the captors who hold employees against their will. I believe that misses the point. Financial freedom takes hard work, but it is a personal choice.

When people get testy with alternative lifestyles, I believe it is more an act of self defense. Note that some of that is in response to the way FI is broached as a subject. If someone of any lifestyle persuasion insinuated my personal choices that differed from theirs constituted a "syndrome" I might get a little defensive as well.

As I've heard someone say before, if a skinny person walks into a bar and calls out all the fat people, what exactly do you expect to happen?

[footenote]

Tyler - I defined Volluntary Wage Slaves as workers who are unhappy in their work but have enslaved themselves through debt. My question asks why we on this forum think these wage slaves often cast as enjoyable/desirable circumstances that most on this forum find harmful?

Having said that, I would never tell someone whom I assess as possibly being self-deluded that they had Wage Slave Stockholm Syndrome! (Nor would I take that approach with a rescued hostage who defended his captor.) You're right: shouting "You're fat!" is not a successful approach!

[matchewed]

No offense to the OP but there is so much wrong with how this thread is being addressed. From the idea of Stockholm Syndrome which is empathy/positive feelings towards ones captor when one is a hostage to that being equated to the employer/employee relationship (you are not coerced nor forced into working, at worst you are influenced by your culture but you still get to make the choice). And then the term Voluntary Wage Slave, could you perhaps find a different term than slave? Wage slavery was a form of being indebted to the employer. In our current cultures this is no longer the case and is at best a bad choice of words and at worst completely glossing over and making light of slavery and wage slavery with something that is totally less bad and awful in the world.

That being said do employees have empathy or positive feelings towards their employers with the exception of people who enjoy their jobs? Maybe, depends on the person.

[tooqk4u22]

No offense to the OP but there is so much wrong with how this thread is being addressed. From the idea of Stockholm Syndrome which is empathy/positive feelings towards ones captor when one is a hostage to that being equated to the employer/employee relationship (you are not coerced nor forced into working, at worst you are influenced by your culture but you still get to make the choice). And then the term Voluntary Wage Slave, could you perhaps find a different term than slave? Wage slavery was a form of being indebted to the employer. In our current cultures this is no longer the case and is at best a bad choice of words and at worst completely glossing over and making light of slavery and wage slavery with something that is totally less bad and awful in the world.

That being said do employees have empathy or positive feelings towards their employers with the exception of people who enjoy their jobs? Maybe, depends on the person.

Seriously....OMG f'in god, wtf with the PC police....seriously this is an example of what is wrong in society.  Stockholm syndrome - seriously, you have never seen a person take/keep a job that they didn't like for whatever reason and then embrace it even though nothing changed (this can also be known as "beaten down" - ooooppps that may be a reference to violence or abuse of _____(pick a group). Also, slavery has been around since the start of time but only in modern US history is a sensitive subject but the definition of slave extends beyond simply being owned by someon else  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave but I am sure your offense to the reference was when the Spartans of Greece thrived on the backs of slaves (BC era) or the Romans enslaved all that they conquered - Right.

Stop the PC BS. 

[matchewed]

Actually I'm not personally offended. It is just a crappy use of words and terms. My point was more that these terms and phrases have meaning and using them wrong reduces the impact of the actual words. But hey thanks for reading. Tune in next time for another exciting episode of Losing Your Shit and Missing the Point.

[wepner]

No offense to the OP but there is so much wrong with how this thread is being addressed. From the idea of Stockholm Syndrome which is empathy/positive feelings towards ones captor when one is a hostage to that being equated to the employer/employee relationship (you are not coerced nor forced into working, at worst you are influenced by your culture but you still get to make the choice). And then the term Voluntary Wage Slave, could you perhaps find a different term than slave? Wage slavery was a form of being indebted to the employer. In our current cultures this is no longer the case and is at best a bad choice of words and at worst completely glossing over and making light of slavery and wage slavery with something that is totally less bad and awful in the world.

That being said do employees have empathy or positive feelings towards their employers with the exception of people who enjoy their jobs? Maybe, depends on the person.

Seriously....OMG f'in god, wtf with the PC police....seriously this is an example of what is wrong in society.  Stockholm syndrome - seriously, you have never seen a person take/keep a job that they didn't like for whatever reason and then embrace it even though nothing changed (this can also be known as "beaten down" - ooooppps that may be a reference to violence or abuse of _____(pick a group). Also, slavery has been around since the start of time but only in modern US history is a sensitive subject but the definition of slave extends beyond simply being owned by someon else  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave but I am sure your offense to the reference was when the Spartans of Greece thrived on the backs of slaves (BC era) or the Romans enslaved all that they conquered - Right.

Stop the PC BS.

If you are going to complain about PC police at least have the decency to type out "fucking" or "bullshit" lest you be seen as a hypocrite.

[limeandpepper]

It's bad-news-bears for self-employed guys trying to be well perceived by many women. "But I'm not a superficial woman! I don't care about salary/prestige, I care about the guy's personality, responsibility blublub bluh bluh." Well great, you're not one of the many. Doesn't change the fact that many women find it very important.

I've gotten such a better response from women saying that I'm in law school (with the presumption I'm hundreds of thousands in debt) instead of owning a chemical company (and clearing...300k+). Oh well.

I don't see that as a problem, unless you actually WANT to date superficial women. And if you don't, why wouldn't you just see it as a great auto-filtering process?

[footenote]

matchewed - You can use whatever phrase you like in place of VWS if you find the term offensive. (I personally have seen "wage slave" used so often it has no offensive tone. But I can understand if you do. Maybe we could call it "Unwitting Debt Servitude.")

What I'm trying to describe is a person who so burdens himself or herself with SL, mortgage, car payment and credit card obligations that every penny of his or her check (and more) is committed before it is even earned. And that condition extends so far into the future that continued "keep up the lifestyle" spending (another leased car, more piled on the credit card eating out) lengthens the involuntary debt servitude. It cuts off options (like leaving the current job for one they find more fulfilling but slightly less well compensated) to the point of being the modern equivalent of Victorian debtor's prison. (But with air conditioning and sushi of course!)

When I ask about Stockholm Syndrome, I am not in any way describing what I see as these people's relationships with their employers, bosses or even the stockholders of the companies for whom they work. I'm observing their own self-described affection for their "every penny is committed before I earn it" lifestyle. I'm baffled that anyone would proudly defend those choices.

Terminology aside, have you observed this puzzling behavior in person or in the mainstream media comments sections of articles about MMM?

[matchewed]

What your describing in my view is just a simple question about consumerism culture (and honestly can apply to any lifestyle not just consumerism). Do people who consume as much or more as they make have an attachment to their lifestyle? If my boiled down question isn't exactly right please let me know.

You observe this behavior in any lifestyle. We are what we repeatedly do and that forms attachments regardless of the lifestyle being good or bad. This attachment can happen to you, to me, and to all people in the world. It is recognizing the bad and realizing that we can choose to stop living that way which is key.

*edit* Just a re-statement regarding whether it is offensive. I don't personally find it offensive. I just think it is a poor choice of words. To me using some of these terms to make a statement is analogous to using the term "like a banana" to describe an apple. Just say an apple.

[MrsPete]

No, I think this assertation is way off base. 

When people say, "Oh, wow, good for you -- but I could never do it myself because _____", it's usually because they aren't willing to put in the effort /make the sacrafices necessary to achieve that goal themselves.  AND (and this is the important part) they want to make it sound as if you've had some atypical luck or have some ability that they lack BECAUSE it's easier than admitting that they just don't want to give the effort /make the sacrafice.  It's easier to blame others.

This isn't JUST about early retirement.  Other examples:

- I know a number of women who wail that they "cannot" afford to stay home with their children, yet they drive SUVs, have their hair and nails done regularly, and eat out every day at lunch.  If they REALLY wanted to stay home with their children, they could do it.  They either haven't bothered to figure up what they're blowing on trivial things, or staying home isn't the real priority.

- So many people say they'd do ANYTHING to lose weight.  Yeah, anything except eat in moderation and exercise. 

[footenote]

No, I think this assertation is way off base. 

When people say, "Oh, wow, good for you -- but I could never do it myself because _____", it's usually because they aren't willing to put in the effort /make the sacrafices necessary to achieve that goal themselves.  AND (and this is the important part) they want to make it sound as if you've had some atypical luck or have some ability that they lack BECAUSE it's easier than admitting that they just don't want to give the effort /make the sacrafice.  It's easier to blame others.

This isn't JUST about early retirement.  Other examples:

- I know a number of women who wail that they "cannot" afford to stay home with their children, yet they drive SUVs, have their hair and nails done regularly, and eat out every day at lunch.  If they REALLY wanted to stay home with their children, they could do it.  They either haven't bothered to figure up what they're blowing on trivial things, or staying home isn't the real priority.

- So many people say they'd do ANYTHING to lose weight.  Yeah, anything except eat in moderation and exercise.

+1
Self-deception: when people say "I cannot" [whatever] without looking hard at the reality of their daily choices.

[seanquixote]

No, I think this assertation is way off base. 

When people say, "Oh, wow, good for you -- but I could never do it myself because _____", it's usually because they aren't willing to put in the effort /make the sacrafices necessary to achieve that goal themselves.  AND (and this is the important part) they want to make it sound as if you've had some atypical luck or have some ability that they lack BECAUSE it's easier than admitting that they just don't want to give the effort /make the sacrafice.  It's easier to blame others.

This isn't JUST about early retirement.  Other examples:

- I know a number of women who wail that they "cannot" afford to stay home with their children, yet they drive SUVs, have their hair and nails done regularly, and eat out every day at lunch.  If they REALLY wanted to stay home with their children, they could do it.  They either haven't bothered to figure up what they're blowing on trivial things, or staying home isn't the real priority.

- So many people say they'd do ANYTHING to lose weight.  Yeah, anything except eat in moderation and exercise.

+1
Self-deception: when people say "I cannot" [whatever] without looking hard at the reality of their daily choices.

Amen..and amen...

But, I think this is one of the insights that gets missed a lot (myself included) ....It is the DAILY choices that make all the difference.  One can wake up one day and vow to fix their fucked-up life...but the small choices EVERY goddamned day are what make the big difference.  Trying to get to the"tipping point" where you say to yourself...I'm DOING this thing or that is not easy to maintain but that's what it is all about.  In my case at this very second...trying to fight the urge to go two cubes over and eat those motherfucking mini-snickers bars that one of my co-workers keeps in her cube (as a ...hell i don't know...i guess to be nice).

Fuckity-Fucking snickers.  That lady two cubes over is nice...but I'd really like to slap her right now...and eat a fucking mini-snickers....or 12.  LOL

[savingtofreedom]

No, I think this assertation is way off base. 

When people say, "Oh, wow, good for you -- but I could never do it myself because _____", it's usually because they aren't willing to put in the effort /make the sacrafices necessary to achieve that goal themselves.  AND (and this is the important part) they want to make it sound as if you've had some atypical luck or have some ability that they lack BECAUSE it's easier than admitting that they just don't want to give the effort /make the sacrafice.  It's easier to blame others.

This isn't JUST about early retirement.  Other examples:

- I know a number of women who wail that they "cannot" afford to stay home with their children, yet they drive SUVs, have their hair and nails done regularly, and eat out every day at lunch.  If they REALLY wanted to stay home with their children, they could do it.  They either haven't bothered to figure up what they're blowing on trivial things, or staying home isn't the real priority.

- So many people say they'd do ANYTHING to lose weight.  Yeah, anything except eat in moderation and exercise.

So true!! I think for most people denial is a much easier path.  Don't these people wake up later in life with maybe a little regret?  Or is this alternative so different than the norm they are exposed to that they can't fathom taking steps to make their life different?

[Tyler]

Tyler - I defined Volluntary Wage Slaves as workers who are unhappy in their work but have enslaved themselves through debt. My question asks why we on this forum think these wage slaves often cast as enjoyable/desirable circumstances that most on this forum find harmful?

Well, just a few years ago I talked very positively about my career even as I job-hopped repeatedly looking for a "better fit".  That was before I realized there was a different way to approach life and that early FI was within my reach if I changed a few things.  I don't think I was delusional or trapped -- I just didn't know any better and was making the best of the options I saw at my disposal.  And the alternative of resigning to the fact that my career was making me miserable while (right or wrong) seeing no way out is simply not a constructive mindset. 

Even once I learned about FI, it wasn't like a light switch flipped on.  Changing habits and digging out of a mental rut takes time.  So while I understand and agree with the wage slave concept from the outside looking in, I guess I'm still empathetic towards the people still stuck in the work rut.  I was there.  So I prefer to encourage rather than judge. 

(By the way, that last statement was also not an act of judgement on any other comment here.  Just offering my personal opinion). 

[smalllife]

I'm going to offer a contrary opinion: what if some of the voluntary wage slaves are flexing a bit of their optimism muscle?  It might not be what we would prefer they focus on, nor is it effective to our values, but it is a way of being happy in the lifestyle they have fallen into.  Would you fault a frugal person for being a wage slave (in that they are not FI and dependent on the paycheck) and trying to focus on the positives of their company and position?  The uptick in mental happiness from doing so, especially if FI is a loooong way off, is worth considering.   

Perhaps it's my area of living, or the businesses I deal with, but this forum is slanted towards higher incomes where it is relatively easy to achieve 50% savings or more by trimming most of the fat.  For those of us on the lower income scale, where even retiring in 20 years requires some Mustachian muscle, focusing on the positive at our jobs and/or our companies makes sense.  Stockholm syndrome denial? No.  Choosing to ignore the negatives to make the most of a so-so situation? Why not?

[footenote]

smalllife - Thank you - I love different opinions!

I hear you, and can argue that Stockhold Syndrome itself can be an optimistic, functional behavior. ("Hey, captor: you didn't kill me. I love you for that!")

And you're right - if big spenders are happy, that may be their best life, regardless of those behaviors not aligning with the values of most posters here.

[seanquixote]

I'm going to offer a contrary opinion: ....

Very well said.  Thanks.

[Zelda01]

Totoro and Mr Mark:

Thanks for the welcome!