Realistic Expectations

[Eduard]

yeah... I guess...

[OlgaH]

yeah... I guess...

You guess? How many other men just guess and after they are complaining about cost     Where their realistic expectations were before? 

[Eduard]

I don't care too much for materialistic women (or men for that matter) and help my guys steer away from materialistic women. So it's never an issue... I mean, every one likes nice things and nice gifts but there has to be the right balance. A materialistic woman can be a good wife to a certain type of man, but that kind of marriage would be more like a business contract and not something I'd like to have in my life. I guess I'm a romantic at heart 

[Donna_Pedro]

but that kind of marriage would be more like a business contract and not something I'd like to have in my life. I guess I'm a romantic at heart 

You do not know what it would be like, because you have never tried.    But I can tell you - most women I ever worked with were materialistic and very down to earth. They simply know they need to hide it (and if they dont - I tell them ). They even say  that they love their men. But it never keeps them to ask me to veryfy their wellbeing.

[Faux Pas]

I don't care too much for materialistic women (or men for that matter) and help my guys steer away from materialistic women. So it's never an issue... I mean, every one likes nice things and nice gifts but there has to be the right balance. A materialistic woman can be a good wife to a certain type of man, but that kind of marriage would be more like a business contract and not something I'd like to have in my life. I guess I'm a romantic at heart 

Eduard, materialistic is a word that gets tossed around quite loosely on the forums and over used to describe undesirable women. Probably, very incorrectly. Your statement and POV is yours and I can respect that but, it's very "Peter Panish" and fantasy based IMHO.

People and more specifically for this conversation women, want things. Over and above what they need to survive, it's human nature. If these women convince you or your clients they have no materialistic tendencies, then you are being fooled. She may not even want things in her current environment at the time you discover her or your clients meet her but, the chances are great that once in her new settings and environment that will change.

You'd be doing your clients a better service to remind and brief them of the changes they might expect as opposed to your discoveries all fit into this nice tidy package. FWIW

[Eduard]

You do not know what it would be like, because you have never tried.    But I can tell you - most women I ever worked with were materialistic and very down to earth. They simply know they need to hide it (and if they dont - I tell them ). They even say  that they love their men. But it never keeps them to ask me to veryfy their wellbeing.

All people have a materialistic side to them - it's human nature. I think that most men realise how important security is for women. However it is important for many men (including myself) to know that my woman is with me not because of the things I can give her but rather because she loves and respects me and wants me in her life. A good, loving woman can inspire a man to work harder and to achieve a lot more in life than he would on his own.   

[Muzh]

I think you have misinterpreted her reasons to call Russia "a horrible place to live." Vodka or samogon have really nothing to do with it. (And btw, samogon is often far better than commercially sold vodka.)
You can read some of the reasons why Russian people consider immigration here: http://ej.ru/?a=note&id=11696

Oh baby, I can vouch for that. Especially in Ukraine. If you buy Ukrainian made vodka in UA, you can tell immediately it has been watered down. Not to mention that the most expensive of their vodka is at least two thirds less expensive than Russian vodka.

Last summer I bought Nemeroff because I was told it was the best I could get. Ptui! I think I paid 57 gv. Next time I went to the same supermarket, I bought Russian Standard Imperial(?) for 150 gr. It was worth every kopeck.

Still the Russian vodka is not as good as the Hetman I bought about 10 years ago. That was sublime.

[Misha]

All people have a materialistic side to them - it's human nature. I think that most men realise how important security is for women.

We can't survive without material culture, so yes we are all materialistic. The question is more whether a person can be satisfied with a reasonable level of well-being.

Researchers at Princeton did a study to look at the link between salary and happiness. Their results:

"

a daily survey of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. residents and found that while life evaluation rose steadily with annual income, the quality of the respondents’ everyday experiences did not improve beyond approximately $75,000 a year

"

In other words, you reach a certain point where making more money does not make you more happy...

Source: http://wws.princeton.edu/news/Income_Happiness/

However it is important for many men (including myself) to know that my woman is with me not because of the things I can give her but rather because she loves and respects me and wants me in her life.

Amen, brother 

A good, loving woman can inspire a man to work harder and to achieve a lot more in life than he would on his own.

So very true!

[Faux Pas]

We can't survive without material culture, so yes we are all materialistic. The question is more whether a person can be satisfied with a reasonable level of well-being.

Researchers at Princeton did a study to look at the link between salary and happiness. Their results:

"

a daily survey of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. residents and found that while life evaluation rose steadily with annual income, the quality of the respondents’ everyday experiences did not improve beyond approximately $75,000 a year

"

In other words, you reach a certain point where making more money does not make you more happy...

Source: http://wws.princeton.edu/news/Income_Happiness/

Amen, brother 


So very true!

Misha, that poll is laughable at best. Happiness is different things to different people. You seem to be using the information in a most disingenuous kind of way and finishing it with "So very true". Did you read the whole thing or just the part to support your claim? 

"

“We conclude that lack of money brings both emotional misery and low life evaluation; similar results were found for anger,” write the authors in the report. “Beyond $75,000 in the contemporary United States, however, higher income is neither the road to experienced happiness nor the road to the relief of unhappiness or stress, although higher income continues to improve individuals’ life evaluations.” 
The study does not imply that a financial increase will not improve the quality of life, but suggests that above a certain income level, people’s emotional wellbeing is constrained by other factors, such as temperament and life circumstances.
The take home message of the study is that high incomes don’t bring you happiness, but they do bring you a life that you think is better. "

Have you ever earmed more than $75K to know or do you just take their (the pollsters) word for it. Is that enough information for you that you'll avoid making $75K to insure your own happiness?

IMHO for anyone who equates money with happiness no matter how much they make, will also make this claim.

[Misha]

Misha, that poll is laughable at best. Happiness is different things to different people. You seem to be using the information in a most disingenuous kind of way and finishing it with "So very true". Did you read the whole thing or just the part to support your claim?   

Yes, happiness means different things to different people, but you can ask people whether they consider themselves happy without having to ensure that each and everybody's rationale for their decision is the same. It is pretty basic quantitative research using a questionnaire. You get a random sample, you get a sample size that will give you a reasonable margin of error (usually between 1,000 and 1,200 people) and you ask the questions.

Have you ever earmed more than $75K to know or do you just take their (the pollsters) word for it. Is that enough information for you that you'll avoid making $75K to insure your own happiness?

I love the assumptions people make    I have been earning more than $75k for years. However, do you not understand research? It is not the word of the "pollsters" it is the results a random survey where people were asked questions to see what exactly was the correlation between salary and how they ranked their happiness (ranking their lives on a scale of 1 to 10). It is not exactly voodoo science.

IMHO for anyone who equates money with happiness no matter how much they make, will also make this claim.

What the research highlights is simply that people who do not make enough to meet basic needs they will face certain stresses (will they be able to pay their bills, etc...). It does not mean that all people who make little will be unhappy, but yes there is a likelihood that not having enough to meet basic needs will cause some problems. However, the point that is interesting, is that once you reach a certain level, there is a levelling off of any potential benefits in terms of happiness. As the authors write:

"

The study does not imply that a financial increase will not improve the quality of life, but suggests that above a certain income level, people’s emotional wellbeing is constrained by other factors, such as temperament and life circumstances."

The way I interpret it is that somebody earning $150,000 won't automatically make you twice as happy, or twice as satisfied with your life, as somebody making $75,000. In other words, more money does not make you happier or more satisfied with your life and that once you make enough to meet certain minimum expenditures, you won't have people less stress, more satisfied or otherwise more happy with their lives.

[ML]

This has all been researched in much more detail.

Do google search for 'utility theory.'

Has nothing to do with public utilities.

A short start here:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utility-theory.html


More specifically, the increasing income levels discussed earlier is part of 'Marginal Utility Theory.'

"Although total utility usually increases as more of a good is consumed, marginal utility usually decreases with each additional increase in the consumption of a good. This decrease demonstrates the law of diminishing marginal utility. Because there is a certain threshold of satisfaction, the consumer will no longer receive the same pleasure from consumption once that threshold is crossed. In other words, total utility will increase at a slower pace as an individual increases the quantity consumed."

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/economics/economics5.asp#ixzz1jqjVf3tN

[Faux Pas]

Yes, happiness means different things to different people, but you can ask people whether they consider themselves happy without having to ensure that each and everybody's rationale for their decision is the same. It is pretty basic quantitative research using a questionnaire. You get a random sample, you get a sample size that will give you a reasonable margin of error (usually between 1,000 and 1,200 people) and you ask the questions.

Thank you for the Polling 101 lesson plan  I'm familiar polls and the ways and means of them. The same questions asked slightly different ways would likely result in different answers. Polls more often than not start with intended conclusions. Happiness is much too subjective to directly equate to earnings. Doesn't matter than Princeton supported and/or conducted the poll, it doesn't make the results anymore believing. Ask 1200 people making more than 75k if they can be happy making less than that and  at least 1190 will tell you no. Ask 1200 making 30K if they will be happier making 75k and 1199 will tell you yes. You can literally find a poll to conclude anything you like

[Misha]

Happiness is much too subjective to directly equate to earnings.

The process is quite simple. You ask background info at the start including salary and then you have a series of questions where you ask individuals to rank their happiness/satisfaction/whatever on some form of scale. Then you crunch the numbers and see the patterns: what was the average ranking on the scale of 1 to 10 for people earning between A and B dollars, then between C and D dollars, etc...

[Gator]

This has all been researched in much more detail.... In other words, total utility will increase at a slower pace as an individual increases the quantity consumed.

 
The same theory applies to breast size.  The "threshold of satisfaction" varies among men, and to some men more than a mouthful is unnecessary.

[Patagonie]

We can't survive without material culture, so yes we are all materialistic. The question is more whether a person can be satisfied with a reasonable level of well-being.

Researchers at Princeton did a study to look at the link between salary and happiness. Their results:

"

a daily survey of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. residents and found that while life evaluation rose steadily with annual income, the quality of the respondents’ everyday experiences did not improve beyond approximately $75,000 a year

"

In other words, you reach a certain point where making more money does not make you more happy...

Source: http://wws.princeton.edu/news/Income_Happiness/

Amen, brother 


So very true!

:

Very interesting study. Just give me some solid clues about what i was guessing, not knowing the threshold. Perhaps in a gold world, everybody should earn 6000 $ per month at least. It should be the minimum wage to reach a global happiness society. Just to let the Maslow pyramind behind us.

[SANDRO43]

The same theory applies to breast size...to some men more than a mouthful is unnecessary.

Or a cupful, in case of those champagne-glass configurations .

[TheTraveler]

This is how I read that princeton poll:
 
Most people try to make their own happiness, regardless of where their income is at.
 
On the other hand, it's easy to adjust your compass to finer living.  Not so easy to adjust downwards.
 
If one earns $75K per year and has never known the feeling of earning $300K per year, they might be quite content.
 
But if their salary is $300K per year and circumstances cause it to drop to $75K (even if they were happy making $75K earlier in their careers), I'd be willing to bet they'd be pretty unhappy.
 

[Gator]

“I’ve been poor and I’ve been rich. Rich is better!”

 
   Quoted by many, but first quoted in Wash. Post, 12 May 1937 just after the Great Depression (before my time  )

[Eduard]

“I’ve been poor and I’ve been rich. Rich is better!”

 
   Quoted by many, but first quoted in Wash. Post, 12 May 1937 just after the Great Depression (before my time  )

rich maybe is better, yet it does not make a happy person.

[chivo]

This is how I read that princeton poll:
 
Most people try to make their own happiness, regardless of where their income is at.
 
On the other hand, it's easy to adjust your compass to finer living.  Not so easy to adjust downwards.
 
If one earns $75K per year and has never known the feeling of earning $300K per year, they might be quite content.
 
But if their salary is $300K per year and circumstances cause it to drop to $75K (even if they were happy making $75K earlier in their careers), I'd be willing to bet they'd be pretty unhappy.

We as humans tend to live to our means and in this scenario I wouldn't agree with this. Maybe at first but I think one would eventually adjust and be all right.
 
I had my income drop 50% during the 2008 crisis but was still way above the median income level and was quite OK with it. I just adjusted. Now if one make 3 million per and drops to 75K that might be a different story. I still think in the latter case, eventually I'd get over it, move on and make the best of the situation and be happy. But hey that's just me  .

[Gator]

rich maybe is better, yet it does not make a happy person.

I agree with one small change,  "rich maybe is better, yet it does not make guarantee a happy person.  Psychiatrist's offices are filled with the discontented wealthy.
 
Speaking of discontentment and wealth, Bill covered this over 500 years ago in Othello: 
 

Poor and content is rich and rich enough.

Perhaps Bill plagiarized someone 2000 years earlier, namely Socrates:
 

He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature.

Few people have the choice to be wealthy, yet everyone has the choice to be contented with what they have.  Perhaps even the penniless alcoholic is contented with nothing more than a bottle of vodka.  I don't know about the alcoholic and God forbid I am ever there.  And that reminds me of another quote coming a little after Socrates:
 

Judge not, lest you be judged.

 
 
 

 

[Misha]

But if their salary is $300K per year and circumstances cause it to drop to $75K (even if they were happy making $75K earlier in their careers), I'd be willing to bet they'd be pretty unhappy.

Sure, in the short term, but after a few years, the people who were satisfied with their lives making 300k would have adjusted to their new salary (downsizing homes, car, vacations, etc...) and in most cases would be invariably satisfied with their new lives earning $75,000.


There is a Harvard psychologist, Dan Gilbert, who has a wonderful talk on TED explaining the science on happiness. One point he highlights is the research comparing people who severed their spinal cords and became paraplegics compared to people who won lotteries winning large sums of money. Once the two groups had adjusted (a year or a few years down the road), both groups were equally happy. In other words, becoming a millionnaire doesn't make you any happier than being confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your life.

[Faux Pas]

In other words, becoming a millionnaire doesn't make you any happier than being confined to a wheelchair for the rest of your life.

Wow!

Who'da thunk?

[OlgaH]

Judge not, lest you be judged.

and another one is

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

and talking about realistic expectations regarding this thread a person should have a good judgement to "cut his/her hand off" probably earlier than to face a divorce in less than a year or "to go into hell, where the fire never goes out" 

PS

Socrates: "My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher" (a forum philosopher  ) 


 

[JR]

"He who has little but wants nothing is richer than he who has much but wants more."