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

75 points

The rich will never have enough money and we will all suffer to that end.

permalink
report
reply
9 points

The rich will never have enough money and we will all suffer to that end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It’s harder to think about “enough” in places like India (or even the US) where there is so much inequality.

But I would define “enough” as comfortable. Not worried about bills, buying whatever groceries you want, a good living situation and enough cushion that an emergency won’t make you homeless.

The addiction to more, more, more is a disorder like hoarding is.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Household income would be a whole family that lives together.

permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

It never is. It’s the same everywhere too.

I once read on the Internet if you’re dependant on income you are poor. I think that is a perfect definition, because it removes the rivalry between all, well, slaves.

By money count I am possibly rich in direct comparison to you. Yet here I am, requiring income for my family and me to survive alone, additionally being bound by long term costs.

So it’s basically the same for all of us (albeit with different numbers and different conditions) except for a handful who can do what they want.

If you’re interested in details in my case hit me up by pm.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

People can be satisfied and have enough, but those people are generally not CEOs or famous actors. Read @Azzu@lemm.ee comment for someone who thinks they have enough money

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I don’t disagree but the odds are heavily stacked against this. The whole system is based on performing better and growth, driving this.

Hence even if you’re satisfied, it won’t be enough for long…

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I don’t think all wealth is unethical, but it’s certainly easier to get money by being unethical

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Uh… am I missing something? Wouldn’t the need for a paywall imply that without a paywall the non-scam site is doing worse financially?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asklemmy

!asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Create post

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it’s welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Icon by @Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 5K

    Posts

  • 273K

    Comments