• smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    I get your sentiment (that you don’t need to we wealthy to be happy), but most definitions of “poverty” aren’t just “not rich”, they’re more “unable to afford basic means”, which there is a lot wrong with!

    • 0x4E4F@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can agree with that. And that is a system (social) problem, it’s not a human conditioning problem.

      My point was, being rich is not good either. Ask how many rich people are happy, I mean truly happy. I bet the bunch in the image is having a better time than any rich person will ever have.

      • diannetea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is no way rich people are less happy than the average poor person bar mental health conditions, they may have stressors like a demanding job, but that is nothing compared to whether or not you’ll lose everything if you get too sick, or whether you can pay the bills because you didn’t get enough hours at one of your jobs, or if you have enough food to feed your family. Wealth gives so much more opportunity to fulfill desires and become happy.

        Have you ever been actually poor? Have you ever been homeless or lived in a shelter? I can’t help but feel like your words may be that of privilege.

        “Being rich is not good” is a very naive take. Being rich means less stress and more opportunities.

        • 0x4E4F@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re all taking what I said to extremes… and I can understand why, there is no middle ground for a lot of things in this world, including the lower and upper middle class… you either have to be rich or be homeless.

          That is essentially what’s wrong with today’s world. There is no middle anything.