*laugh* Yeah... You know, psychological studies consistently show that once you get past the poverty line, money does not correllate to happiness? A billionaire is exactly as likely to be in love with life as a working class loser. He's also exactly as likely to be clinically depressed.

And you're absolutely right, from an environmental perspective. Unless you really work at it, a richer life is pretty much always a more destructive one. And America's obsession with "more, more, more" is the main reason we're the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. Countries like the Netherlands, where they have shorter work weeks and more vacation time... Also have much lower per capita emissions than we do. Incidentally, they tend to have lower rates of depression and lower levels of stress.

Yeah, this "ambition" thing isn't sounding so great suddenly, is it?

On the first article... I have to say, I did like that Gail Saltz approached the situation as a simple difference in priorities--she says point blank that the boyfriend's lack of ambition isn't necessarily a character flaw. In fact, while she doesn't criticize the questioner at all, I have a feeling her sympathies are a little closer to him than her. She goes on to indicate that these two may not be right for each other in the long term--which, quite possibly, they're not--but doesn't present this as being anyone's fault (and as much as I agree with you, a conflict like this really is no one's fault).

The one real flaw I found in Dr. Saltz' article was the seeming assumption that a relationship that isn't likely to last forever isn't worth keeping. Hell, I don't know about anyone else, but many of the best relationships I've had have been ones I knew wouldn't last forever. This girl is still in college; she doesn't need to be planning a wedding yet. She needs to be enjoying herself with the person she wants to be with right now. Yes, it's possible that later on down the line, she'll decide that she can't pursue the life she wants with this guy; that'll be some tough shit when it happens, but there's no sense in burying what isn't dead yet. It's also possible that sometime in the next couple of years, he'll find a career he'll be incredibly passionate about--maybe not a "corporate ladder" type career, but I have a feeling she'd be able to live with anything that let her feel like he was accomplishing something. It's also possible that she'll grow as a person and discover that she doesn't really need her partner to be as ambitious as she is. It's also possible that they'll break up over something completely unrelated. Either way, she starts out her letter with the sentence, "I love my boyfriend and have never been happier." Why would you ruin that based on speculation about the distant future?

The second article, I found rather less palatable. The questioner's question was legit; she's having money troubles--and I was raised by a single-parent teacher, and have worked as a sub, so I know how dire their situation is. But the attitude the columnist took was just one excercise in ignorance after another.

First off, the notion that each member is responsible for exactly half the finances is ridiculous. Sorry, people make different amounts of money. There's nothing wrong with that. And that, to address one of your questions, is sexist. We both know perfectly well, if it were a man writing about his wife not making enough money, no one would suggest that she's obligated to provide exactly as much as he does. And they'd be right not to--as I said, people make different amounts of money.

But what really pissed me off was the assertion that any job as okay "as long as it's legal." Now, I'm not suggesting turning to a life of crime to make ends meet. But is there no better ethical consideration than "is it legal?" Shouldn't the material consequences of what you do be the deal-breaker, not a societal technicality? I don't know about you, but I have no trouble with the idea of dating or being married to anyone of any finanical status. Hell, I'm fairly sure I could date a career criminal if I honestly believed they weren't hurting anyone. But if I had a spouse who got a job working for, say, an oil company or a company that uses sweatshop labor, it would mean divorce.

Another way our culture of consumption perpetuates itself--we're not taught to consider the consequences of our actions, beyond what we can see, touch, and--most importantly--count.

Closing with a quote, because it applies:

"They say 92 percent of everything you learned in school
was a bunch of bullshit you'll never need
And 84 percent of everything you got
you bought to satisfy your greed
'Cause 90 percent of the entire population link possessions to success,
Even though 80 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
Drinks to an alarming excess."
--Todd Snider, "Statistician's Blues"

Yep Pathos I saw a recent study of relative happiness in different countries presented teevee style. they interviewed a group from the "happiest" country, Denmark. they have a 50% tax. But everything is taken care of.

While you go to school? payed.

health problems? Payed.

They still wanted to suceed, but at more enlightened tasks. Like the rejected spouse in the MSN piece.

All this status seeking in our fear based culture is aimed at what? Feathering the nest, it's a healthy natural response. Necessary to survival. Healthcare has to come out of a fat paycheck these days in the USA. as well as everything else a family needs, that kids need, freedom from the fear of uncertainty these outsourced jobs impell.

Kids need freedom from the subtle psychological pressure of developing under sudden financial disaster. We are all of us, uinsured or under insured or tenuously insured through tyranical employers, one accident or tumor away from destitution.

The horror for a child of watching dad die because he can't afford insurance? It's just too much.

So can anyone blame her for wanting a financially successful spouse? Nope. But why don't we all get together and blame the healthcare system, or lack thereof? In Denmark they seemed much less pressured on this front.

I think the pressures of a corporatist mess of a culture makes us all pawns, preying on each other eventually.

We want a fellow agent of chaos to fight the tyranny with, not a nagging spouse. This status seeking behaviour seems like betrayal somehow.

more later....

You know, I hadn't considered health care as an environmental issue before, but you make an excellent point. If we didn't have that expense, there wouldn't be so much pressure to have a high income, which would result in less consumption all around. Let's face it, the more you have, the more you spend on frivolous shit--even if you need that money for other things like health care. It's an indirect connection to the environment, but I think it would make a major difference.

And for that matter, while we're reducing consumption, I wouldn't at all mind paying a local tax for a few years if it would build better public transportation systems. It would be a temporary thing--once the infrastructure is in place, the system should fund itself, and then some. Because let's face it--in most places, for the standard American lifestyle, you *do* need a car. In large cities, the need for a car is largely a myth; in small cities, suburbs and rural areas, it's really not. You charge a little up front to eliminate that need, and then eventually far more people--particularly lower-income people--don't have to make car payments, so they're pocketing more of their salary, so less stress.

So, basically, what I think we're saying is, we need higher taxes and more concrete services, so we'll be less stressed, less forced to be overly materialistic, and more free to love whom we wish, and the environment will be cleaner. When we pitch this to the public, we should find a way to phrase it other than "we need higher taxes."

That's for sure! More new taxes is not a winning campaign slogan. Hard to get to the level of comfort of Denmark. Especially if the ultimate goal is free love.

It's a conundrum.

I like your plan better on a personal basis.

Great news here in wisconsin though, at least kids are now covered, that relieves some financial pressure.

Personally I think it is worth giving in to the money grubbing culture enough to atain independent wealth. Conspicuous consumption of the eco politicallycorrect items is a viable alternative to get the social status necessary to further the mission of free love.

I know it's hypocritical, but we are all victims, hehey. of our own hypocricy.

I agree though, it is an even bigger mistake to then give up the illusory freedom of wealth for a complicated relationship with mind bending hidden assumptions plaguing true love. No way out in the end.