Sure, wealth can help with relationships, but how can you write an article about the highest forms of wealth and not even mention them? It betrays a particular view of the world and a particular set of values. And while it’s not out and said, I think this article is interested in achieving a satisfying life, for which I think relationships are more important than finance.

This too is covered, both explicitly and implicitly, in the article. The concept that more money can make you less happy is explicitly covered, and the concept that if you want to do something and can't you aren't wealthy is covered. Obviously, there are many people for whom what they want to do today is play with their kids/grandkids/friends.

I think the issue many are running into with this article is that autonomy is a complicated subject and it covers whatever you're thinking isn't covered here.

Lol. When you have "kids/grandkids/friends", you don't get to control your time. You don't just "play with kids/grandkids/friends". LOL.

The author obviously didn't have this in mind.

how so? if you dont have money you must allocate lots of time to kid after work. if you are wealthy, 1st thing you might not work all and 2nd thing you might have nanny or two, who take care of heavy lifting.

"doing whatever you want" does not equal to "stuff that satisfies for very short periods of time (i.e. not only drugs, games and tv)"

Yes. When your family get sick , just ask driver to send a note.

It feels like you meant this sarcastically, but actually that would be pretty great.

You might be able to make extended arguments about how the points in the article relate to relationships, or influence them, but suggesting the topic is entirely covered by this limited advice is absurd. Also, I’m not simply looking for it to be covered but for it to be appropriately centered, which it’s not.

> "Controlling your time and the ability to wake up and say, “I can do whatever I want today.”

If you are in a good relationship, you can’t do whatever you want any day. The goal of the article is fundamentally incompatible with the sacrifices required for a good relationship with another human being.

it is compatible, if "thing I want" == "spend time with these people/make them happy"

That’s not how it works. Sometimes you wake up one day and decide you want to go to the natural history museum but your SO wants to go to the MOMA to show you a new piece.

Someone doesn’t get what they want in that scenario and a compromise has to be made.

I don't see the incompatibility. Not all desires are immediate or "selfish" as such.

I think it helps a lot to find someone who often wants to do the same thing as you.