Money and a greater selection of choice are the key to happiness; both being technically interchangeable, as money allows one to have a greater variety of options. However, these two authors, Barry Schwartz (TedTalk) and Allen Salkin (NY Times), seem to disagree. Schwartz claims a greater variety of choice causes one to feel less satisfied with what they end up choosing because they feel they could have picked something better. And Salkin claims 500k to live in NYC is not nearly enough for the life of these bigwig bankers. The issue with these claims is the narrow-minded analyzation of a persons mentality, the way they perceive life, and what they think is necessary. The major flaw in Schwartz argument was how he considered people only feeling as though they could have picked something better after making a tough (or even simple) decision, the greater variety makes selection tedious, and those who prefer simplicity would get lost in the possibilities, which he claimed could happen with his analogy of buying jeans now that there are more styles. However, he doesn’t consider the other, clearly positive side, of a greater selection of choice. When presented with a vast number of selections, each will cater to a niche taste more and more allowing for more satisfaction, especially if one learns what they like or don’t about a particular choice, allowing for better judgement in the future. In addition, he states the issue with the lack of choice: people surrender to the consequences of unquestionable government without well… question. He claims it was easier before when he knew his jeans would be uncomfortable and he just dealt with it, he set a low expectation and accepted it, but in itself does that not explicate the meaning of less satisfaction? Salkin’s argument was no better, claiming 500k is insufficient because of a lifestyle these bigwigs perceive is necessary to uphold. THIS LIFESTYLE IS NOT FORCED ONTO THEM WHATSOEVER! Had it been mandated, had there been truly no choice, then sure the argument holds up, but Salkin states these people fall to peer pressure of trying to match their big corporate acquaintances. While these two arguments have claims that are not agreeable, they do present the answer to this issue they seem to perceive: DO WHAT SATISFIES YOU MOST! If you have more choice then don’t set low expectations, seek what aligns with your desires most. If you are a corporate bigwig and can’t keep up with this overly-materialistic lifestyle, don’t follow others and do what is pleasurable for you without breaking the bank. Money and choice do bring happiness, it’s how you decide to utilize it that defines your satisfaction.
