Jan 2, 2011
YOUR LETTERS
Steer youth away from trap of materialism
Dr Lee Wei Ling's article, 'Caught in the trap of materialism' (Dec19), struck me as timely, given that some of us are gripped by the spirit of acquisitiveness.
There is no harm in engaging in a bit of joie de vivre during festive time or as a reward for having worked hard. However, I frown on unbridled ostentation and the misplaced values of splurging as a means of self-gratification or showing off.
Dr Lee has every right to be disdainful of those who spend $14,500 on a bottle of wine or 22-year-olds who do not work and yet drive BMWs and flaunt designer bags.
Moreover, spending to make oneself happy isn't exactly an exemplary axiom to abide by.
Regrettably, such excesses seem to be becoming more endemic, fuelled no doubt by media that fixates on the hedonistic lifestyles of the rich and famous, as well as wannabes.
Seriously, is everyone interested in such fodder? Do we really care how much some socialite has spent dolling herself up for some high-society ball, or how local celebrities or the nouveau riche are spending their spare cash?
I worry that more impressionable readers will be seduced into believing that living the high life equates with how an individual's success is assessed.
Unfortunately, it is hard for good sense to prevail when mainstream society aids and abets this notion, and the young grow up not knowing any better.
It thus behoves parents to impart a sense of perspective and provide a moral ballast.
Even then, there is no guarantee of salvation when some parents get sucked into this mindless vortex of materialism and their offspring follow in their footsteps.
Alas, it would appear that we are forever doomed to be ensnared in this trap with no chance of escape.
Marietta Koh (Mrs)
I don't realy agree with this letter, but hope to hear other views....
Jan 16, 2011
YOUR LETTERS
Money can buy happiness but...
I refer to Mrs Marietta Koh's letter, 'Steer youth away from trap of materialism' (Jan 2), and Dr Lee Wei Ling's article, 'Caught in the trap of materialism' (Dec 19, 2010).
We must not be too quick to criticise people who pursue a materialistic lifestyle. Materialism becomes a problem only when one is unable to sustain such a lifestyle.
There is nothing wrong in viewing success in terms of wealth and living the 'high life'. Money can buy happiness, even if it is just temporary. So who are we to tell others not to live a materialistic life if they can sustain their own perceived definition of happiness?
In our bid to steer young people away from materialism, we must not always take what we see at face value, but should take into consideration the background of these seemingly materialistic individuals.
I know a young man just shy of 21years who received a luxury sports car as a birthday present. He fits into the category of what Mrs Koh classifies as those who 'do not work and yet drive BMWs and flaunt designer bags'.
But can we blame such people for being materialistic just because their rich parents have the capacity to show their love in more extravagant ways than, say, the average middle-income parents who buy their children expensive watches for their birthdays, or the lower-income parents who can afford to buy their children only a teddy bear?
Essentially, the value of the gift is relative to what each family can afford.
The job of the parents is to explain to their children that the enjoyment of material goods comes only after hard work or prudent investment, or both.
That way, materialism as a lifestyle can become a fulfilling goal to achieve and sustain, instead of being demonised as a 'trap'.
Wong Chun Han
Isnt this topic already dealt with by........Rich Dad, poor Dad???
The point is to first generate enough passive income to be financially free...........
Not to be entrap in a rat-race to satisfy those "wants".........
there are reasons why wealth difficult to last more than 3 generations
(16-01-2011, 03:03 PM)freedom Wrote: [ -> ]there are reasons why wealth difficult to last more than 3 generations
Yes, 1st generation works hards and earns it. 2nd Generation gets to enjoy the passive income and lives comfortably. 3rd Generation doesn't see or appreciate the hard work, and thus spends it. By the time the 4th generation comes along, there isn't much money or passive income left!
I guess Wong is more "pro-choice" towards materialism as compared to us. If sustainable(though this is subjective), then why not.
More importantly, I believe is the material purchased.
If the material in question is an appreciating asset(e.g. selected wines, bags, property), then yeah, why not.
However, often than not, they are depreciating assets, meant to satisfy urges more than any other things.
A separate issue arises when funding these materialistic urges.
Sad to say, majority are eventually manifest to be credit and debts.
At that point of time, where Money can buy happiness, Debt can offer one sadness and distress...Free of Charge
The generation issue reminds me this book titled "The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of American's Wealthy"
The book states some problems faced by rich families and possible reasons why 80% of American millionaires are
first-generation millionaires. Wealth doesn't last for generations cos pampering the "weakest" child financially is one of the reasons of squandered wealth.
Wong's right about the size of gift is a relative term...
But I believe that if Wong himself is given a sportscar when he's 21 & showered with cash by his parents... it might decrease his motivation for work...
I suppose Warren Buffett sums up the the kind of attitude that parents should adopt for their kids.
"I want to give my kids enough so that they could feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing."
We would be all communists if materialism doesn't exist.
In our world of capitalists, the best and finest will be made available to the most able.
So, a bit of extravagance for themselves and their loved ones is nothing wrong.
This is especially true if the parents didn't have something when growing up, they tend to want to
make it available to their kids. This is a good thing, and if the kids are taught right, they would want to do the same to
their kids and the cycle continues and there is an improvement in standard of living.
However, if the kids are not taught the correct values, take for granted whatever that is given to them
without thinking what it takes to earn those things, and that they are constantly asking for more, then there is something terribly wrong.
So in short, it doesn't matter what is being given. It is the values behind the giving and how it is given that really counts.
(08-03-2011, 11:26 PM)Big Toe Wrote: [ -> ]We would be all communists if materialism doesn't exist.
In our world of capitalists, the best and finest will be made available to the most able.
So, a bit of extravagance for themselves and their loved ones is nothing wrong.
This is especially true if the parents didn't have something when growing up, they tend to want to
make it available to their kids. This is a good thing, and if the kids are taught right, they would want to do the same to
their kids and the cycle continues and there is an improvement in standard of living.
However, if the kids are not taught the correct values, take for granted whatever that is given to them
without thinking what it takes to earn those things, and that they are constantly asking for more, then there is something terribly wrong.
So in short, it doesn't matter what is being given. It is the values behind the giving and how it is given that really counts.
Hi Big Toe,
I do not think we can directly equate materialism with either capitalism or communism.
We can be communist but still be materialistic. Under communism with materialistic teenagers/adults, iphones will be distributed to all teenagers/adults equally.
Under capitalism, iphone will not be distributed because the company wants to earn profit.
That being said, the company will use materialism through advertisments in order to sell as many iphones as possible to generate more profit. In this sense, capitalism and materialism are indirectly co-related.
With regards to teaching the young about values, I agree with you fully. There is no harm if rich kids splurge in excess as long as they are able to afford to. If use correctly, materialism can be use to motivate one to be successful in life.
The danger comes when banks spread the illusion that "easily available credit" and "low interest rates" make material goods more "affordable" to those who cannot afford them. People will start going into debt at a much earlier age for things that they want and not for things they truly need.