Mindless accummulation

[goodlife]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/business/you-cant-take-it-with-you-but-you-still-want-more.html?adxnnl=1&src=recg&adxnnlx=1389045692-dqEeVaGi25MdJcAjD/tspg

I just came across the above article and thought it was very interesting and actually a concept that I have thought about quite a bit (not in regards to chocolate but in regards to money obviously). A lot of people I am surrounded with always say that they need a couple of million dollars to retire and they keep slaving away even when they already have millions! I always found this very puzzling because I'd rather escape the rat race asap, so this article was quite insightful in terms of the psychology behind a lot of this mindless accummulation that I think so many people fall prey to. I really don't want to be a mindless accummulator and while I had never heard of that term until now, I think I have always tried to act in a way so that I don't become one.

I often see posts on here from people who are already FI but continue to work "just one more year" in order to just get a little bit more money even though it may not make a bit of difference in the end. Maybe the above article would be helpful for anyone feeling scared of pulling the plug.

[Ian]

I expected a generic op-ed, but I was pleasantly surprised to see research discussed. Even though I agree that mindless accumulation exists, I would not have thought that people would senselessly work for something they predicted (accurately) they'd forfeit immediately.

[limeandpepper]

Very interesting article/experiment! I would say it is relevant to life before imminent retirement, too. Thanks for sharing.

[Jamesqf]

I have to wonder, though, just who decided that the music was pleasant.  I certainly would choose white noise over most of today's popular music.

[Janie]

The music (piano selections) and the noise were both rated on a pleasantness scale in a pre-test by a group of subjects similar to the research participants. The full text of the paper can be found here. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/christopher.hsee/vita/Papers/OverEarning.pdf

[dragoncar]

This isn't surprising.  Sure, you don't expect to eat the excess chocolate.  But what if you suddenly get really hungry?  What if there's an earthquake and you get stuck in the testing chamber with only your hard-won chocolates to sustain your for days until rescue comes?  It's human nature to hedge against  famine, which is one of the reasons we are collectively getting so fat.

[gooki]

I suspect they've gameified the experiment, hence the results.

However the final quote is well worth contemplating.

Most of the things that truly make us happy in life are harder to count,

[golden1]

I think there are other factors as to why people keep on working long past the point at where they would be comfortable, most having to do with our social status drives.

Say you are middle class and you accumulate enough to enter the upper middle class, all of a sudden you are in a new social class but at the bottom of the earning potential at that class.  You start comparing yourself to your new friends or work peers and you feel "deprived" compared to the new normal.  So you have plenty of money, but you work harder and harder to get more to achieve more status within your new group. 

This is part of why I like this blog, because it urges you to eschew all that so that you can earn your freedom. 

[MrsPete]

Cute experiment, but I'm not sure the results of a "game" can be generalized to how people feel about working and accumulating wealth.  At a glance, I'd think competitive people would be more motivated to "earn chocolates", even if they couldn't eat them . . . but in real life, that same competitive spirit might not manifest itself in the desire to earn more money -- it could mean they're more likely to want to buy stuff, which is more visible to other people. 

And chocolates aren't the same as money for the rest of your life.

Personally, I have more right now than some people on this board who have already retired, but my personal "comfort zone" is a little higher.  I'm more concerned about increasing costs in the future, and with my genes I'm likely to live much longer than average.  I would rather work a few  more years NOW than find myself forced to return to the work force at a later date.  My choice to continue working "a couple more years" might not make sense to other people, but it doesn't mean it's not the right choice for me. 

[anastrophe]

I think there are also a lot of factors missing, e.g. eating chocolate is not remotely the same as 'earning' employer-sponsored healthcare. But it is very interesting and I'll be watching myself to see if I can catch it in action.

[CommonCents]

Agree, it's interesting but I'll work longer to hedge against the unknown (getting sick, someone I know having a problem, my pension being reduced, etc) plus the "known unknown" like stock market performance.

I suspect also some folks find it hard to deal with change and also the inertia factor.  My husband hates his job, but hasn't made much strides in looking for another job.

[lexie2000]

I think there are other factors as to why people keep on working long past the point at where they would be comfortable, most having to do with our social status drives.

Say you are middle class and you accumulate enough to enter the upper middle class, all of a sudden you are in a new social class but at the bottom of the earning potential at that class.  You start comparing yourself to your new friends or work peers and you feel "deprived" compared to the new normal.  So you have plenty of money, but you work harder and harder to get more to achieve more status within your new group. 

This is part of why I like this blog, because it urges you to eschew all that so that you can earn your freedom.

Or it could have to do with the economic uncertainty in the US.  We were hesitant to include Social Security in our retirement planning which meant saving more on our own. 

[clarkfan1979]

I haven't read the article, but I will this weekend. The Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago is probably the #1 Business school in the country. They are super progressive and have almost all Psychology faculty. Many decisions are often psychological and not economic. Alan Greenspan stated that he missed the "crash" because he underestimated how irrational people can be with their decisions when things start to go bad. This website and forum continues to impress me beyond my wildest dreams. A very well respected engineer continues to give credit to Psychology which is a field that most people mock.