05-11-2003 06:55									#1
	Wealth: Absolute or relative? Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

When measuring one's wealth should it be measured against the wealth of others, or against your own personal markers?

At another forum I was told I was wealthy because I have more assets than most people on this Earth. I find this logic flawed. For suppose that most people on this Earth deemed poorer than me are eliminated from existence and I retain my same standard of living (it may even improve due to lack of demand on resources?) am I suddenly poor? I think this a nonsense argument.

I measure wealth by what I have compared to what I want. When discussing relative wealth you can say someone is poorer than another but that to me is saying that one person has more ability to purchase any given possession than another, whether or not they want or need it. For example I may see my neighbour has a new car that I can't afford, but if I don't want that type of car I don't feel poorer for not being able to afford it, even though you could say I am poorer than him simply for not being able to afford it. Does that make sense?

So, the only way I can see relative wealth playing a role for me is if I am introduced to a possesion,asset etc that another person has and it incites a desire in me to have one too. If I can not afford it I feel poorer, but only compared to my personal markers.

I guess what I boil this down to is, is it possible to make every person wealthy, or at least not poor (ie. satisfy all basic needs and throw in a few luxuries) without necessarily irradicating disparity of wealth? I personnally think it is.

	05-11-2003 07:01									#2
	Suffering from ads?

i've always thought wealth was measured by the difference between one's income, and their basic cost of living. my income now, and where i live, i'm not wealthy . . . but if i were to keep the same level of income, and live in say, somalia, i'd be wealthy. it's all relative.

	05-11-2003 07:19									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

relative

Jon Miller

	05-11-2003 07:19									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

Wealth is relative, as everyone does not place the same amount of value on the same things.

	05-11-2003 07:22									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

There's no answer to this question.

First, every day, perhaps every hour, you make adjustments in your expectations regarding money and wealth.

Second, your wealth versus the avg standard of living, the median income level, etc, etc is not calucated very accurately in most people's minds. What is the cost of living in your area? Can you really answer that question? Aren't there more than one level of "cost of living".

Third, if you are alive and healthy -- you are wealthy. How many studies do we need to read where the finds show that people are not ultimately satisfied with money and wealth. For most people, it's fourth or fifth on their list of priorities.

Finally, I'm really pissed that my neighbor bought one of those Mercedes SUVs. DAMN! I'm going to have trade the Lexus in now. I'm so f**kin' poor, it ain't funny.

	05-11-2003 07:25									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

It's relative. I consider myself wealthy, but wouldn't be considered so by a great number of people. (particularily because my income is currently $0 and my networth only a couple thousand. )

	05-11-2003 07:30									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

relative of course. Absolute means nothing if you arnt comparing it to anything else.

	05-11-2003 07:37									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I should clarify what I mean by absolute and relative.

Absolute: No one else's status matters to you in determining your status of poorness or wealth.

Relative: You measure your status by comparing your possesions with everyone else's.

	05-11-2003 07:41									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I absolutely wish my relative was wealthy

	05-11-2003 07:44									#10
	Support Apolyton

Both ways you described it is relative.

In reality, wealth is not the sum set of what "toys" you have. Wealth describes a set of relationships. Neither money nor property are real things. They are obligations and limitations on the conduct of others.

Saying you own a piece of land is saying that no one else has a right to use it. Saying you have a certain amount of money is saying you are owed a certain amount of labor-power from other human beings.

As to your final question: no, it is not possible in the capitalist system.

	05-11-2003 08:13									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

My first measure of wealth would quality of relationships - God and Man

My second would be good health

My third would be control of time

My fourth would be inner peace

Material comfort would come a long way down the list.

	05-11-2003 08:17									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It's better to cry in a limousine than on the pavement. Having said that as long as you have enough to eat and a roof above your head it's all relative. (which is what you should mean by absolut)

	05-11-2003 09:08									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara As to your final question: no, it is not possible in the capitalist system.

I second that.

	05-11-2003 09:19									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

Whether or not you are wealthy is measured relative to other people - because you say "I am wealthier than him" or "I am wealthier than I used to be". Wealth is measured in absolutes, though, as in "I have X wealth" (though of course we don't say it that way).

	05-11-2003 11:05									#15
	Full PM-box? Change here!

How do people put a number on non-monetary wealth? This is where the subjectivity emerges, in that so long as people have what they consider to be valuable, they will be happy.

I'd much rather be poor in funds and rich in spirit.

Last edited by Ben Kenobi on 05-11-2003 at 14:46

	05-11-2003 11:12									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse My first measure of wealth would quality of relationships - God and Man My second would be good health My third would be control of time My fourth would be inner peace Material comfort would come a long way down the list.

Alexander, you are a true philosopher. Your observation is true in many regards. Material well being does not necessarily translate into happiness.

Still in answer to the basic question, in America, it all about keeping up with the Jones. (An old saying here.)

	05-11-2003 11:34									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

why thank you Ned

	05-11-2003 11:36									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

wealth and poverty are relative. The richest Americans 200 years ago would kill to have a television, car and running hot water.

	05-11-2003 14:35									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I don't give a damn about what others have particularly. It's only important when it impacts me directly. Thus I don't envy my friends or family, but if they are so poor that I have to take care of them their relative level of wealth begins to have more meaning for me. Of course the richer I am the less that means, as I can afford more largesse.

	05-11-2003 14:36									#20
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Osweld It's relative. I consider myself wealthy, but wouldn't be considered so by a great number of people. (particularily because my income is currently $0 and my networth only a couple thousand. )

So I could buy you for a song, gut your assets and reduce your workforce and dump you in the market for a nice little profit. Cool!