Why do some people need so much money?

Anthony Garcia19 said:So, what’s actually worth it in the end? What does a person value most? Is it all about the material stuff—money, power, and status? Or is it that sense of personal freedom? To me, there's nothing better than having the liberty to just be yourself and actually chase those creative sparks alongside a community of people who get it.

So, you think I’m calling humans social predators—like some kind of wolf? What makes you say that? I was just looking at those Eskimos from the example used to argue against the theory.

At our core, humans instinctively try to grab as many resources as possible just to survive. Honestly, that's true for every living creature on this planet. The issue here is that you're applying a priori moral judgments to certain things, which inevitably leads to an emotional conflict.
The Eskimos build their communities the way they do because that specific structure is the most efficient path to securing maximum resources for the group—and by extension, for each individual within it. They, much like any other society, act to maximize the survival probability of every single member. When a person sacrifices something for the sake of the community, they are doing so because it serves their own interest. It isn't necessarily a "profit" you can see in a bank account or something that manifests immediately. Humans are speculative beings at heart.
If you hold onto moral judgments claiming that working for others is "good" while working for oneself is "bad," you should probably expect to find yourself in a state of internal conflict.

Andrew Booth29 said:What even defines a "good" community versus a "bad" one? It's an abstract, subjective metric at best.
Take, for instance, a tribe surviving in a harsh, semi-desert region—I think it was somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, if my memory serves—that would kill a newborn if they judged the child to be physically or mentally weak, or even if it was born with a minor defect. Is that a "good" community or a "bad" one?

Actually, "good" and "bad" are objective categories. People just interpret them differently based on their own perspectives.

The example you brought up isn't easy to answer quickly. At first glance, it might not necessarily be a "bad" community if life is so brutal that they're choosing between two evils—picking the lesser of two bad options. If there isn't enough food or space to be compassionate without risking everyone else's survival, then everything depends on those specific circumstances.

placidwolf27 said:It doesn't matter... certain disparities in ability or whatever aren't an explanation or an excuse for the systemic mess we see today. There isn't much connection between the two, aside from the obvious assumption that people will grab whatever slice of the pie they can based on their skill sets...

What exactly "didn't work"? Are you talking about economic growth?

There are efficient ways to handle this—more or less direct approaches exist...

It just seems to me—perhaps implicitly in your posts—that you view this as some sort of natural state... as if this is just how things go, or how humans are inherently wired... or something like that...

Nah, I don't think individuals hoarding stuff is some natural state of being. It's more like a byproduct of how people act, I guess. And if you tried to stop it by any means necessary, it would probably just lead to stagnation, or maybe even a total step backward.

Andrew Booth29 said:The very fact that people are working so hard to prove a point just shows they’re arguing against an opposing view—which, if you glance at this forum, is clearly the dominant mindset these days. Good grief, the entire philosophy of socialism is built upon that exact myth. Entire nations and whole continents have fallen straight into that trap.
One also needs to be careful about falling into common logical fallacies. Just because a gain isn't necessarily caused by someone else's loss doesn't mean that *every* gain works that way. What simply doesn't hold up is the assertion: "One person's gain is always someone else's loss."

You could draw a similar parallel with the myth that success is solely the result of an individual's talent. It's definitely not true that skill and profit are always proportional (unless by "skill" you actually mean being "street smart" or shady). What people usually ignore is that anyone's success is built on the labor and ability of countless others. Most of those people only get whatever the owner decides to give them, rather than what their actual contribution is worth.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying gains can't happen without losses. That's usually how it works today, but if we boost overall prosperity and distribute things fairly, that wouldn't have to be the case anymore.

Zachary Mendoza2 said:I have been trying to avoid answering whether we are all truly equal. 😁
I am not sure what you mean by that. We are equal in terms of our basic needs: food, shelter, self-actualization, and so on. We are also equal because we belong to the same species, with two arms and two legs, faces, etc.
Otherwise, I would say we are quite different. 🤷
In fact, I can distinguish people at first glance by their appearance, the sound of their voice, or how they speak. I can even recognize people on this forum just by their writing style; forget avatars and usernames. 🙂

I’m talking about our core values—the natural ones. What comes first: a) power over others and owning stuff, or b) cooperation, helping out, freedom, and being creative? Do we want todominate and control or share and work together?

Anthony Garcia19 said:I’m talking about our core values—the natural ones. What comes first: a) power over others and owning stuff, or b) cooperation, helping out, freedom, and being creative? Do we want todominate and control or share and work together?

But how can one do that when 🤷
If I am surrounded by good people who share with me, I want to be that same way toward them. But if they seek to enslave me just to enrich themselves, then I want to do the same to them 😳

Anthony Garcia19 said:You could draw a similar parallel with the myth that success is solely the result of an individual's talent. It's definitely not true that skill and profit are always proportional (unless by "skill" you actually mean being "street smart" or shady). What people usually ignore is that anyone's success is built on the labor and ability of countless others. Most of those people only get whatever the owner decides to give them, rather than what their actual contribution is worth.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying gains can't happen without losses. That's usually how it works today, but if we boost overall prosperity and distribute things fairly, that wouldn't have to be the case anymore.

That's just straight-up wrong.🤷

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Nah, I don't think individuals hoarding stuff is some natural state of being. It's more like a byproduct of how people act, I guess. And if you tried to stop it by any means necessary, it would probably just lead to stagnation, or maybe even a total step backward.

But the issue isn't about preventing it at all costs...
nor is it even really about the individual accumulation itself

Without specifically engineered, intentionally organized, and consciously maintained systems of accumulation—on the scale we see today—modernity simply wouldn't function. It's much like how modern mass production wouldn't be possible without specialized technological frameworks. And please, let's skip the tautologies—like saying "man can use a hammer because he has the innate capacity to build one"—that doesn't really hold water when discussing "human nature" anymore...

You can certainly take a broad generalization derived from some vague assumption about "divine human nature" and try to force it onto a highly specific, complex system, but that rarely yields anything remotely logical...

Andrew Booth29 said:At our core, humans instinctively try to grab as many resources as possible just to survive. Honestly, that's true for every living creature on this planet. The issue here is that you're applying a priori moral judgments to certain things, which inevitably leads to an emotional conflict.
The Eskimos build their communities the way they do because that specific structure is the most efficient path to securing maximum resources for the group—and by extension, for each individual within it. They, much like any other society, act to maximize the survival probability of every single member. When a person sacrifices something for the sake of the community, they are doing so because it serves their own interest. It isn't necessarily a "profit" you can see in a bank account or something that manifests immediately. Humans are speculative beings at heart.
If you hold onto moral judgments claiming that working for others is "good" while working for oneself is "bad," you should probably expect to find yourself in a state of internal conflict.

I don't see myself that way, so there's no internal conflict for me.

I don't subscribe to the idea that working for yourself is bad and working for others is good.
The distinction doesn't make sense to me. I just focus on doing what I love—stuff that actually makes me happy. Honestly, I don't really care who gets the credit or the results; if it helps someone who needs it or makes them smile, then fine by me.
That's a pretty different take than your theory about sacrificing for a community just to get ahead later...

Maybe I'm just from another planet! 🙂

Zachary Mendoza2 said:But how can one do that when 🤷
If I am surrounded by good people who share with me, I want to be that same way toward them. But if they seek to enslave me just to enrich themselves, then I want to do the same to them 😳

Fair enough, but where do you actually feel more comfortable and happy?
I think I already know the answer! 🙂

Karen Rodriguez3 said:Nah, I don't think individuals hoarding stuff is some natural state of being. It's more like a byproduct of how people act, I guess. And if you tried to stop it by any means necessary, it would probably just lead to stagnation, or maybe even a total step backward.

Maybe I'm missing something here... What exactly do you mean by acting by nature? If you're talking about being creative, sure, that's definitely part of being human. But why feel the need to keep all that work to yourself (that individual buildup)?

If this isn't our natural state (since you said it isn't), then why does it seem like most people function this way? It's hard for them to even imagine a different kind of world.

Generally speaking, I find more fulfillment in environments built on cooperation and mutual sharing rather than those defined by competition and conflict. 🙂
However, I occasionally enjoy playing Monopoly, too. It’s a bit selfish, I know, but nothing brings me more satisfaction than wiping everyone out and cramming all four players into my little house while they fume about it. 😳

Karen Rodriguez3 said:That's just straight-up wrong.🤷

Why not? I mean, isn't the owner the one calling the shots?

That’s all governed by federal law

The real question—and there's always a catch—is how much influence an owner (and I’m certainly not talking about some guy on Main Street here) can actually exert over those regulations...

Zachary Mendoza2 said:Generally speaking, I find more fulfillment in environments built on cooperation and mutual sharing rather than those defined by competition and conflict. 🙂
However, I occasionally enjoy playing Monopoly, too. It’s a bit selfish, I know, but nothing brings me more satisfaction than wiping everyone out and cramming all four players into my little house while they fume about it. 😳

😂

After a lot of back-and-forth, your response might actually be the best one here. It proves that happiness doesn't come from acquiring stuff or taking it from others, but from things money simply can't buy. 🙂

It’s basically a roadmap for how society should evolve.

And the whole Monopoly thing just supports the idea of homo ludens, the idea that humans are essentially beings meant to play—which is something I mentioned right at the start. 😉

placidwolf27 said:That’s all governed by federal law

The real question—and there's always a catch—is how much influence an owner (and I’m certainly not talking about some guy on Main Street here) can actually exert over those regulations...

I'd say a massive amount.

But when you're looking at an individual, the government sets the rules for taxes, social security, and various other fees. Those are limits set by the state that they control regardless of what the owner wants. Once that's out of the way, the owner—or group of owners, depending on the setup—decides how to use and split whatever is left over.

The law sets the floor for the minimum wage, but that’s just the baseline...

Everything else is dictated by the market—it fluctuates constantly. You won't find anyone paying significantly above the going rate, nor will you see anyone offering excessive bonuses beyond what's necessary to stay competitive.

At least, that's how things function in a healthy, functioning economy. Here in America, things have always been a bit skewed, and now, with everything currently unfolding
...
Ultimately, it isn't really about the owner as an individual, but rather the business entity itself.

I mean, an owner's personal whims don't dictate whether they can actually afford the payroll this month, or if they decide to raise or lower wages. It’s more about the macro decisions—whether they move production to Mexico where labor costs are lower, or perhaps go as far as investing heavily in manufacturing plants in China.

Forget about the economy! 🙂

Look, you can't deny that business owners have total autonomy when it comes to how they handle profits and payroll. They can choose to pay people based on their actual individual contribution to the bottom line, or they can just stick to standard market rates—it’s their call. And it isn't just about salaries; it's about reinvestment too. Sure, that profit comes from everyone's hard work, but legally, it belongs to the owner. I don't see what the big deal is here, at least for this discussion.

Anthony Garcia19 said:I'd say a massive amount.

But when you're looking at an individual, the government sets the rules for taxes, social security, and various other fees. Those are limits set by the state that they control regardless of what the owner wants. Once that's out of the way, the owner—or group of owners, depending on the setup—decides how to use and split whatever is left over.

You've got a point there. The government sets the baseline, and after that, it's mostly down to the market.
Not everyone is doing jobs where you can just pay some basic minimum wage set by the state and call it a day. If I need a solid specialist for my business, I have to pay them what they're actually worth. Basically, whatever rate they're willing to work for. Otherwise, they'll just head over to a competitor.
Obviously, there's a ceiling to how much I can spend based on what my business can actually handle. If I can't find the right person for the budget I have, I end up lowering my standards, which honestly just puts the whole company and everyone relying on it at risk.
Sometimes, you just don't have a choice.
And then there's the whole thing where people tend to take the path of least resistance. They go through the motions to get degrees in jobs that aren't really in demand, and then act surprised when they have a Master's degree but zero job offers.
And yeah, ideally, some of that money should actually stay in the pot. But if that were the case, who do you think should be calling the shots on how it's spent and distributed?

It’s actually quite simple. These people only find happiness if they have more and more... than everyone else. They seem fundamentally broken... they've lost their way... they don't know any other way to live... and they don't want to... money and wealth have become their entire identity.

You don't even need to look at millionaires or billionaires... just observe everyday life where people are constantly competing... over who has the better car, the better clothes, or the newest iPhone... just material things. For the average person, having a little extra is plenty... enough to share happiness with family... to help someone else... to give what they have instead of stepping on others to get ahead...

Technology and the endless stream of new gadgets have just created more things for people to compete over just to feel better about themselves. And in the process, they forget that true happiness should be found outside of material possessions...