Comments on: Does Materialism Breed Unhappiness?

By: Kristy @ Master Your Card

Kristy @ Master Your Card — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:43:43 +0000

I don’t think materialism is what makes people unhappy. I think materialism is a product of being unhappy. Whenever we’re down and out, most of us turn to either food or shopping. If we’re always feeling down, we can accumulate a lot of stuff that way. I think unhappiness is something that comes from within, and if you’re not happy in life, you have to examine the root, not what’s come about because of it.

By: Geoff K

Geoff K — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:14:07 +0000

I agree with the LAL about unhappiness being unrelated to materialism. It’s just that many people with various internal problems often try to make themselves feel better by spending. Buying things provides a temporary high to them. Addressing the need, or internal feelings in the first place, is probably a lot more effective way to be happier.

Also I think focusing on and finding pleasure and enjoyment in what you have, and your relationships, goes a long way to having a happy life.

By: MoneyEnergy

MoneyEnergy — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:02:34 +0000

lol, editor,…. I also didn’t know what BTDT was… and it’s only because you added your editor’s note that I learned it – and I’m definitely not old! I do know other abbreviations:)

The other woman’s argument is certainly true that in general we do, to some extent, value ourselves through things we own. I’m speaking as someone who doesn’t even have a TV or her own car yet let alone a house or a second car. I would characterize my own materialist tendencies as minimalist (and I’m still in grad school). I guess the argument I would make is that there is an intimate relationship between how our minds work and the things in our environment. That’s why clearing out clutter helps so much.

By: Abigail

Abigail — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:45:29 +0000

I think a line needs to be drawn between “materialism” and “rampant materialism.”

Lots of people want creature comforts above and beyond the basics. That doesn’t mean we think the next purchase will bring the joy that has thus far eluded us.

I think rampant materialism (keeping up with the Joneses etc) is where you get into trouble. When you have to have things because you just have to. When you always need to have the newest and best. And when you’re constantly chasing that thrill of a new purchase.

By: Baker @ ManVsDebt

Baker @ ManVsDebt — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:28:37 +0000

I enjoyed the post! Things like The 100 Thing Challenge have done wonders for my overall view on “stuff”. I also agree that is nothing wrong with enjoy materialistic things as long as that doesn’t negatively effect your financial, spiritual, family, or physical portions of your overall life!

By: Miranda

Miranda — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:09:38 +0000

I think materialism is more about when you try to hang your entire happiness on THINGS. If all you care about is things, it’s hard to be happy because you can’t ever get enough. It’s impossible! Enjoying things, and having things is different from converting things into your idea of status and happiness. If you always want more, you’ll never be satisfied. If you view more as a bounty to enjoy, I think it’s easier to find contentment.

By: WorkHomePlay

WorkHomePlay — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:03:56 +0000

Thanks for sharing! I totally agree with LAL. A lot of people have the simple goal of financial stability. This includes being able to provide for others (kids, extended family, etc.) People are generally happier when they have these abilities. They’re empowered by the choice to buy something or not. Also, the work it takes to achieve financial stability makes a person happy. The end result is sometimes just icing on the cake.

By: kosmo @ The Casual Observer

kosmo @ The Casual Observer — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:58:22 +0000

I think there is a happy medium. You can enjoy material things without being consumed by the pursuit.

Do I like being able to afford things? Certainly. Would I work twice as many hours to make twice as much money? Certainly not.