> We have more prosperity and I sometimes wonder if our parents didn't have more life.

When I was younger and naive, I judged the Amish. As I've grown older and wiser, I realize they had the right idea all along. Family, loved ones, community first. Everything else serves those.

The Amish are actually some of the most successful businessmen.

So... its probably not all just "friends and family values" in the Amish world. Despite a luddite-based culture and "technically" an 8th grade education, they're probably one of the hardest working people around.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06...

--------

They just figured out where to focus their business chops. Organic foods, hand-crafted customized furniture, etc. etc. And the Amish have a huge reputation as among the best craftsmen and freshest foods for these sorts of things.

Their sense of community probably also helps keep the various Amish businesses alive since they help each other so much.

The Amish have built a prosperous life for themselves selling their brand of "quaintness" to Goldman Sachs traders buying curio cabinets and porch swings for their place in Sag Harbor.

My impression is that their brand is more about quality. I can't imagine the Amish "cost-optimizing" like big manufacturers do. So much stuff is a nice veneer with shoddy bones.

Regarding the Amish, I admire their approach to technology. Technology is only accepted if it benefits them without distracting them from their main duties (family & church).

This inherently makes them immune to the majority of the downsides we see in today's tech such as addictive patterns, advertising or "broken by design" tools as they would just not become accepted in the community to begin with.

Given the current, often user-hostile state of technology I think this is an example we should at least consider.

Define "technology". Anything invented after the year 1800? 1900? 1980?

In modern America we used to have that, but non-job social structures have been hollowed out since the 1970s. Now Americans get a distressingly large percentage of their social interactions via work, making them psychologically dependent on their job too.

Well as I unerstand it, the average American salaried worker spends 10-12 hours a day, at least 5 days a week, at the office. With maybe 10 days holiday a year.

How does anyone have time to have an actual life outside work?

We goof off at work.

The error is universalism. Neither mindset you're describing is appropriate to be given a universal "should" status, people have differing preferences. Some rather enjoy having their work be a big part if not the primary part of their life. Plus there are many nice things which benefit everyone that wouldn't exist if the people who brought them about had just treated their jobs as jobs. Maybe some think those things shouldn't exist, but you'll never convince the creators of that.

Where America still shines is you can for the most part still go with either mindset as you prefer. Even in SV tech where there's so much "dream job" this and other such talk, BigCos are nevertheless packed full of employees for whom it's just a job. But there are the occasional rather devoted employees who put in much more than 40 hours (not to mention the fudgey to account for time where you're thinking about work topics in the shower, at dinner, before bed...) and that's fine, it can make a nice mix. Now if you start down the socialist path of promoting a universal policy, and there are many (like limiting work hours) that could support making things easier for the just-a-job mentality, what you're actually doing is eliminating an option people prefer, and a huge source of innovation along with it.

"Money doesn't buy happiness" is just something we tell the poor so they don't revolt -- this also applied to communism -- the communist elites lived a much better life materially and socially. Sure, average Ivan was "happy" because his neighbors had just as crappy flat, just as crappy car, just as crappy job, just as crappy food and so on and there was no way for him to "better" his life because money was meaningless because thats not what Ivan really lacked -- he lacked freedom to do as he pleased with his money.

My point was that people are competitive, social animals and social status is very important; sure, communism castrated a lot of those impulses and some people claim they were much happier back then, but its mostly bullshit nostalgia.

I was very young back then, but I remember the deprivations, my kindergarten educator slapping me for not applauding "dear leader", my parents just leaving me alone in the flat because they had to go the communist parades, being lectured in kindergarden how my parents jobs(doctors) were in fact less important than the jobs of other coleagues worker-parents jobs who "perhaps" made the syringes my parents could not do without; I remember people having to work on saturdays, night shifts and so on.

Having not lived through it, but having seen a glimpse of its aftermath living in Berlin a few years, it was very interesting to see the contrasts between the Ossis and Wessis (at least ones that were say, at least 18 in 1989). In general, I found the Ossis to be more friendly and open and fun loving. For example, an Ossi party would usually be louder, messier, and have worse food, but everyone would be laughing and a guitar might come out at some point. The typical Wessi party I experienced was perfectly catered, everyone was perfectly dressed, and it was in a perfect house, but people weren't necessarily having that much fun.

Now this is different in other parts of Germany, but it's an interesting natural experiment, because these guys were literally in the same city.

It’s not exactly a novel concept. Compare your recollection of the low class Irish party scene on the Titanic. What’s your imagination of a suburban house party or block party compared to the eloquent glitzy ballroom party by the well-to-do? Not many in society are expecting the well off to have much fun in gatherings amongst themselves.

It should be obvious that money prevents the sorrow of poverty.

"Money doesn't buy happiness" refers to happiness, which is not simply the lack of sadness.

It means that once all the typical material needs are provided, simply having more money does not make people visibly HAPPY all the time, and most people tend to focus on other goals.

This has been proven again and again by scientific research.

Money may not buy happiness but poverty sure can remove it.

In Romanian we say 'Money don't bring happiness but neither does their lack of'

The OP referred to Yugoslavia, its socialism was vastly different. After the first years of the Tito era, there was little pressure to praise Tito, just not to disparage him. The 1970s are fondly remembered as the decade of the vikendica and middle-class holidays in Bali. (Young Yugoslavs also made up a conspicuous portion of the travelers on the Istanbul–Kathmandu trail, because with the red Yugoslav passport one could travel visa-free all over the world.) If a person wanted especial material success, then one was free to go work in Western Europe, the borders were wide open and a huge amount of people took advantage of this opportunity.

If you are from Romania, as I assume from your username, the experience of socialism there, or other Eastern Bloc countries, does not even compare.

Money doesn't buy happiness. All it can do is buy distraction and remove physical discomfort like starving or sleeping in the rain or riding a bike instead of a car

My dad was salty during communism that he didn't get more "respect" for his labor (highschool teacher) than your run of the mill factory worker. I remember during the early 90s how he was hopefully saying that once the country exits the "transition" phase, we will all have the dignified life of middle class westerners.

Meanwhile the country still does the same in international rankings as it did during the time of our dear leader. However more of the egalitarianism we had disappeared, and while some enjoy some semblance of prosperity in the heart of the major cities, the bulk of the nation has no job security and no future prospect but to be a cheap labor source for the west.

> he didn't get more "respect" for his labor (highschool teacher)

> we will all have the dignified life of middle class westerners

What a sad irony. If he was a highschool teacher in the US as now he could be struggling to pay rent and medical bills and get more or less the same "respect".

At the time there were two issues: - (I think) school teachers were better paid than now, relative to the average population - People in communism mostly knew the US through Hollywood films, which portray a way more glitzy version reality. Especially so in the 80s in popular sitcoms like Dallas.

Super interesting. I believe we have a kind of reflex to also find part of 'us' in our role in society. And that it's not just an american culture bug.

Striking a balance between the two is subtle I suppose.