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

  • fckreddit@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I find celeb ads pretty disgusting. Watched ads for gambling apps? They almost always feature a celeb. All I can say is, we have to know that celebs will do whatever for more money. They don’t care about their audience. The onus is on us to not get influenced by them.

    • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I never liked Ray Winston, but seeing him in all the gambling ads in the UK made me want to car bomb him. A self-satisfied, wide-boy EastEnder conning working class people into wasting their money on an addiction. Fuck him, I hope he has a stroke

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

    • Cort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ll leave this here.

    The happiest nations of the world aren’t obsessed with chasing money and hoarding it because they’ve been supported by their neighbours from birth to where they’re working and supporting their own neighbours. So many of the things that Americans hoard money to try and prevent are just … handled … by everyone’s neighbour, anonymously. The knowledge that this coordination and ‘smoothing’ of stressful troubles is done anonymously, regularly, and unilaterally, serves to reduce a lot of the effects of food insecurity and health insecurity and shelter insecurity. They have a system that works, and it’s shown to be reliable, and people are more calm.

    So I’m not going to say how they achieve that, except “find the objectively-ranked happiest nations of the world and either move there or convince your government to do what they’re doing” and I’ll move on. It’s not hard, but you’re going to go through stages of disbelief (nah, that can’t work because people will cheat), bargaining (can I cheat please?), etc, and either you’ll be ultimately frustrated at the fact that your locale just can’t get there, or you’ll be moving to the locales where they’re doing it.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I just want to add that a substantial social safety net doesn’t have to be a loss of freedom. You can keep it broad and level and market activity can happen above it while still processing information.

      As a libertarians, I often argue with other libertarians about this. To me, being a libertarian is about making liberty the highest value to be sought by governmental design. A reduction of risk for everyone across the board increases liberty. It leaves people free to engage with others as they see fit and to seek profit wherever they will.

      That calm thing you’re talking about is huge. One of the prerequisites of anything that can be called freedom is the ability to think clearly, and science has shown that the more stress and uncertainty a person is under chronically, they less clearly they can think. Freedom means being able to do what you choose, and people can’t really choose if they’re sleep deprived, full of adrenalin and cortisol. Like, the psychological literature calls that “ego depletion”, and with good reason. A person whose willpower budget is always drained, and therefore can’t control themselves, is not a free person.

      Never underestimate the ability of a few good policies to increase individual liberty. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

  • kava@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    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.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

  • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Money only amplifies who you are and what you’re able to do. I’m quite comfortable, but I like to build things and make companies grow, and solve technical problems. I don’t really want to sit back and just do nothing - in fact I’d love a partner to help me do a bit more relaxing - but when left to my own devices I am always learning some new skill or refining some process or generally trying to make the world around me a little better.

  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t know, but I wonder the same. I’m in the US and work for a guy that has tens of millions of dollars. He still spends all day in the office 6 days a week. To be fair, I don’t think he does it for the money, exactly, but I can’t understand why he keeps working at all.

  • eran_morad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    When i am convinced that my children will each have at least enough money for a good education and a home of their own. If my next twenty years are as successful as my last twenty years, then I’ll have enough money only after i can also fund my grandchildrens’ educations.

    It’s kind of a shit world that we’re leaving for the next generations. I’ll try to look out for mine before i fuck off to the great beyond.

  • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think the only way to have “enough” money is to practice gratitude. Being poor is defined by stress, of course; I am not gonna tell you that your problems are all in your head. But when you get a better paying job, it’s easy to thoughtlessly spend more money and still end up feeling poor. So, don’t just excitedly spend all that money. Take a good look at what you appreciate about your current life and what you are proud of, and do what you need to cultivate these good things. Sometimes it is surprising how many of those things are free. Sometimes they need a bit of money to grow.

    The other thing is that each time you cross a moral line, it gets easier to do so again. This is why i do not drink and will never drink. I think the same goes for accepting sponsorships from tobacco companies and other kinds of corruption. And of course being rich naturally shields you from the consequences of these decisions if you let it.

    • xavier666@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      I consider myself rich. This is how i have quantified it

      • Rich enough to avail public transport
      • Rich enough to eat home-cooked meals (enough time to purchase the items as well)
      • Rich enough to spend time on the gym to improve my health
      • Rich enough to spend time on my hobbies (gaming)
      • Rich enough to have spare time to spend with my loved ones
      • Rich enough to afford a nationalized healthcare plan
      • Rich enough to plan a investment technique so that I can retire peacefully

      I am extremely privileged. Sometimes I wonder if I even deserve it. I don’t think i will require any more money at this point. But people around me will call me middle-class because i’m not hustling enough. I don’t care to be honest; i’m at peace.

      • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        My standards are a bit lower than yours (I don’t mind public transport because it’s good enough for my needs) but other than that, I am now realising how privileged I am. By standard social definitions, I’m a broke student, but looking at it from this point of view, I’m one of the richest people I know.

        • xavier666@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          By standard social definitions, I’m a broke student

          This, i believe, is one of the biggest faults of society/social media which is not discussed enough. We are always chasing an unreachable goal of success which makes us constantly depressed.

          I don’t mind public transport because it’s good enough for my needs

          I mostly use public transport other than scenarios where it’s just not feasible (catching a flight at 6-7 am). What I meant to say is that I am fortunate enough to be in an area which has good public transport.

  • TheBigBrother@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    Personally I think “enough money” it’s more a mindset than about physical money, you can have a lot of money and still didn’t have “enough money” or you can not have any money and at the same time have “enough money”.

  • LalSalaamComrade@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Bollywood actors aren’t moral agents. They’re all assholes, all from upper-caste Sindhi, Punjabi and Tamil background, and the new talents emerge from nepotism, which is why today’s Bollywood, once revered in the entire Global South, has gone to dog-shit. These actors have used loop-holes in the system to amass wealth.

    How Shahrukh Khan’s Family Is SECRETLY Scamming India (while we are busy watching Jawan Trailer)

    How Sunny Deol Is Secretly Scamming India (while we are busy watching Gadar 2 and its success party)

    If you just watch movies from the 40s and 60s in India, you’ll be surprised to see how pro-communist Bollywood was. I mean, to be honest, the communists had almost five chances to form the government with Jyoti Basu as the prime minister, but fuck him and his ideological purism.

  • pavnilschanda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t think any amount of money is enough. This is what happens when we live in a society that relies on material wealth as a source of validation instead of a means to fulfill our basic needs.

  • intensely_human@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I think acquiring money can be an addiction, in the sense that it’s a behavior that allows escape (it’s a simple goal that’s easy to define, allowing a person to stop looking around and just go forward). Just like video games provide an orienting direction, hence provide dopamine, hence can be addicting, money can do the same thing.

    Because money is a number, it’s inherently gamified. You can just set “more money” as the objective and you never have to change it and it’s always a direction to go that can produce dopamine.

    Now, if it’s not the best, most meaningful direction. the dopamine flow decreases but doesn’t stop. Just like the video games getting boring, or your brain adapting to the cigarettes or cocaine. You still get a little jolt of dopamine, but not as much as before, so it’s this tired, boring life.

    The thing is, there’s a lot of uncertainty and withdrawal and relearning you have to go through to get away from the repetitive small-hit dopamine cycle and into the more organic, less repetitive, large-hit dopamine cycle of … being a real person doing valuable things.

    So yeah. Money as addiction. Source of small dopamine hits, that are easier to obtain and more familiar and hence comfortable, than the messy and uncertain process of seeking dopamine through real-world accomplishment.

    ALSO, there’s the problem of how markets work. When a person is relative low in the market structure, their only way of getting profit is to really produce a lot of value. The higher a person gets in that structure, ie the more they advance financially, the less value they’re adding. The ultimate asymptote they approach is when they have sufficient money to live on the interest, and it’s totally automatic, and their contribution to economic value is zero.

    This means that as a person follows the path (one of many paths) from worker to entrepreneur to pretty bourgeoise to elite, they steadily lose the natural, organic meaning that comes from actually providing value to others.

    The person who used to love and be sustained by the smiles and appreciation of their coffee customers, probably isn’t getting much juice out of sitting there looking at spreadsheets of their 5000-coffee-shop empire.

    But along the way, they’ve already switched their dopamine source to be from a combination of value provided and money received, to be just the money.

    Which is like sitting there lighting up a cigarette to stave off the discomfort for another hour, or to prevent having to think about something that makes you anxious or uncertain. Just light up a smoke: dopamine.

    Just like me with this damn website. Addicted. Small dopamine hits, comfortable stand-in for actual meaning.