How do Europeans View Being Rich?

Remove all ads!

I came across an interesting article in The Economist on how being rich is viewed in different countries in Europe (we've adopted Israel as a European country, and are trying hard to disown Turkey even though it actually has territory that is in Europe). The results may be interesting. I've added the article in the spoilers, the actual text is pretty short.

Spoiler

How European attitudes vary on the importance of being rich

WHILE Thatcherism made the overt pursuit of wealth more acceptable in Britain, it is still generally regarded as a bit vulgar. This view is reflected in the latest European Social Survey, in which just 13.5% of Britons said that someone who thought it important to be rich, have money and expensive things was "like me". This places them somewhere in the middle of the 26 countries polled. Scandinavian countries identify least with such a person, followed mainly by rich countries in western Europe. Attitudes change going eastwards. Those most keen on being rich are in poorer former Communist countries such as Russia and Ukraine, and in Israel. The Greeks and Irish place great emphasis on being wealthy, though it is not clear whether this is a factor in their current financial predicament, or a consequence of recent severe austerity measures. The French are cultural hold-outs, identifying the least with such an avaricious, déclassé person. Almost three-quarters said that such a person was "not like me".

I think the way the question was stated is a little strange, however - essentially it has people identifying someone who values wealth an material possessions as like or not like themselves. It sounds rather roundabout, perhaps as a way to decouple people of their ingrained view of "the rich" per se. In a sense, you could argue it measures the view towards overt materialism.

The findings themselves are interesting, but I can't say I was particularly shocked. The former Eastern bloc countries are generally more materialistic, with some outliers. The French surprised me a little - as far as I know they are quite outspoken in their talk about equality (as the joke in social science classes went, they had over 200 years and they still haven't put the darned revolution behind them), but as far as I know they have a very solid core of economic professionals. It may also be a little surprising to some how materialistic the Greeks are - but hey, down here we have always considered them money-grubbing backbiters .

 

There is one point that the survey completely misses, that bears mentioning - many people have very different perspectives on what being "rich" actually means. Depending on that personal perspective of what "rich" is can greatly affect how you decide to answer that question.

No some cases are obvious. No one is going to argue superstar athletes, actors, musicians, extremely successful businessmen (to list just a few examples) who make millions of dollar per year aren't rich. But I think there is a grey area that is rather large. For example, if you grew up in poverty, you may consider someone who makes $100K per year as rich. But on the other hand, if you make $100K per year you probably don't consider yourself rich, and reserve such a classification of someone who makes $300K per year as rich. Going still further, a person making $300K per year probably considers themselves very comfortable, but they haven't yet moved to the point where money isn't much of a factor in their decisions, so they probably don't consider themselves rich either. You probably don't reach the point where someone actually considers themselves rich until you get to the point where money ceases to be a factor in your decision making.

From my personal experience - just from observing people around me - most people live at the highest level that they can afford. In other words, most people spend what they make. Until you get to the point where you're making silly money, everyone is just at a different level of broke. Even very responsible individuals who sock money away for retirement and their kids' college fund with every paycheck are not immune to this. They buy a nicer house, they drive a nicer car, they take a bigger vacation. I'm not necessarily condemning this - I'm just pointing out it's human nature.

But to bring this back to the original article, my point is that very few people in the world would probably self-identify as rich. That said, how much a rich person is "like you" may very well depend on what level of "not rich" you happen to be at.

 

I think the "like me" etc. categories relate to how strongly you hold the opinion that it's important to be rich, not whether you consider yourself to be rich.

 

Yes, the survey imo measures more the attitudes towards (open) materialism - the desire to be rich and have "expensive things", not the rich per se.

 

Hmmmm.... I didn't interpret it that way at all. I thought regarding the quote:

"It is important to be rich, have money and expensive things"

That the people were responding whether that statement described them or not. If it isn't, then I apologize, but I fell if they were just asking about materialism in general that there were many ways that they could have phrased the question better.

 

Without going into details, Rob and I are classed as wealthy but I still shop at Matalan and Asda!

 

I'd love to be rich. Anyone who says money can't buy happiness is obviously not using it right!

 

Not sure about your side of the pond, but in the states in all depends on where you live. The median household income in the US (note that's houshold not average per person) was about $54K. There are many areas (mostly metropolitan) in the country where you couldn't possibly afford to raise on family on that income, and I have to guess that the median there is much higher. It's totally possible to be in the top 10%-20% of income earners in the nation and be just about "average" based on a high cost of living where you live.

The corollary I have heard is: "Money can't buy happiness, but it is one hell of a good start!"

 

Money can remove a lot of worries. Being able to easily afford food, housing and medical expenses just as a start is something that would make a lot of people ecstatic.

I, too, think that the phrasing of that question is pretty "...". I wouldn't have agreed with it, depspite being pretty materialistic and placing a lot of importance on financial stability and shiny things.

 

I share Splunge's and The Shaman's interpretation on this one.

"Thought to be" is not "to be".
I interpret like me as "I can identify myself with a person who says: "It's important to be wealthy".
I can imagine a statement (It's important to be wealthy) and there are 3 options to respond: Agree, not sure, disagree.

Recently, I've a hard times keeping up (being out of job), unlike years ago. I guess I learned that money doesn't buy happiness, but neither does "poverty". (What do I now of poverty? I'm living in western Europe... Lucky mofo)

 

Seems pretty clear to me

As for Eastern-Europe: I have some colleagues in a former USSR country and when they were looking to buy a new printer, their idea of "the best" printer seemed different than what we're used to here in Western-Europe. When we are looking for a printer, we're looking for quality for a decent price, while they seemed more interest in status. I guess they would also buy a Mercedes, not for the mileage it can get, but for the status a car like that brings... even if it is ten years old (For the yanks: that's pretty old for a European car ). I'm not sure they perceive quality in the same way we Western-Europeans do, so I'm not surprised they score higher in the survey, while we think the pursuit of riches is... well, weird.

But why is it? A lot of money can bring a lot of security and for some people, the not worrying about making money can bring them a lot of happiness (I mean, opposed to people who worry less about it). But I guess that is different than flaunting with money, which the survey is probably aimed at.

 

It is not strange that people who have it pretty darn good does not think it is important to have it pretty darn good while people who lack many of the things the people at the bottom of the chart take for granted find it rather important to get them.

The general attitude in Sweden is that it is frowned upon being rich. It is not like people are throwing stones at you but it is important to not stand out here. It is vulgar to flaunt, you gain more status by being modest than by bragging. A wealthy person who downplays himself and never show off his wealth gets a lot of status while someone who show off their wealth with houses, cars and everything is seen as vulgar. It should be tasteful. But as BTA said, I don't mind paying taxes and there are quite a lot of very wealthy socialists in Sweden who do not mind paying huge chunks of their earnings in tax.

 

I'm dutch, and I've been living for several months in China now. Perhaps I can offer my perspective; a peek into the mind of a working class european abroad. I hope I don't stray too off-topic.
Perhaps my views on wealth are a bit stuffy and moralistic for some, but I found that my life experiences only served to make my opinions stronger. After my Filipino ex-wife systematically wasted all my savings (I'm 35.000 euros lighter now), she left me for her friend's boyfriend, some millionaire's kid, six weeks after our wedding. I'm of the opinion that materialism isn't just vulgar, but harmful. Not only was I left penniless, but everybody we knew was taught the lesson that if you steal from people, good things happen. That's not what my mom taught me.

Are they right? In my opinion, lying and stealing is what you do when you don't trust the community or your own skills to get by in an honest fashion. It isn't clever, it's what you do when you're not clever.
I once spoke to someone in my karate class: a Surinamese/Indian salesman and a professional debater, who had some very materialistic views, and gave a warped interpretation of how it reflects intelligence: He said that he found more educated people to be easier to convince into buying his products, which means the uneducated people were more intelligent, because they judged his motivation (wanting their money) and preemptively said no. He totally ignored that educated people are often more wealthy, and may actually have some efficient/productive use for whatever he's selling, while the poor people have a tighter budget and simply can't buy. To him, his own product wasn't even relevant; only the cashflow mattered. Cautiousness and thriftiness are good and wise, but they are only the be-all and end-all of intelligence, if you accept as given that money is the only thing that matters.

Unfortunately, that's the kind of mentality that places like the Philippines breeds into people for generations. So many of them get away with it too. I must say that there are very strange things going on there, with the all-powerful church, the family/corruption culture, and the american style consumerism imposed on such an underdeveloped country. I hoped that european culture would improve my ex, but it didn't. Well, enough about that terrible place, mostly populated by horrible people.
I remarried, and moved close to Chendu in China, where my wife and I are trying hard to get an english school up and running. I left the comfort of my lazy security job in Holland, and if I'm lucky the school will succeed, and I'll earn roughly 1/3 of what I earned in Holland. The things we do for love, eh? This is true love: without money, there's nothing for greedy people to want from me. Always look on the bright side!
So now I'm living happily in China, and I must say it isn't the place commie-fearing americans hate so much. The TV commercial assaults alone are enough to make me stop watching TV. There's quite a mix between traditionalists, and those who are more progressive (I use the term loosely).
I know and like many of the principles of communism, but in practice the message is lost and the morality is not based on communism atall. Traditionalists in China don't uphold communist values, but plain old prudeness, intolerance to homosexuals, hygiene-themed cultural habits (honestly, being called dirty and childish because i lick my own fingers while everybody is dipping their saliva-coated chopsticks in all the dishes, really gets on my nerves... mealtimes are the worst), and other nonsense. It's no different from the archaic values that many muslims and backwater christians wish to impose everywhere. [On a sidenote, China's one-child policy is woefully ineffective. They should just lift the ban on porn. Visually overstimulated men are poor performers, so to speak. Although my body being saturated with ginger may have something to do with it..]

Since I don't understand most of what people say, I get to skip the pleasantries and my wife tells me the translated questions that it builds up to:
- "He wants to learn english from you. For free." There are (poor quality) teachers who teach the locals some basic english for free. I can respect thriftiness, and the Chinese sure love free stuff. But we're renting a school and have bills to pay.
- "He/She wants to play a game with you. Gamble and win your money." They're all a bunch of gambling addicts here. Get rich quick is like music to their ears.

Enough of the negative comments on China: It's mainly as a reply to the question of materialism raised by this thread. I'm dutch/european, and these are my views. On the whole, I'm very impressed by China; the people here are proud of their civilization, and are happy with little. This way, the society is very stable, and people have slowly built their wealth to improve their lives. The streets are safe at night, and there is very little crime. A side-effect that doesn't serve me well, is that people feel safe enough to stare at you for a prolonged period; the kind of thing that would get your teeth knocked out if you try it with the wrong person in Europe or the States. Staring on the street is one thing, but the gawking over every bite at mealtime took a lot of getting used to. Westerners like to be given some modicum of privacy, even when eating together. The Chinese just don't get that if you fawn over a guest's every action, they feel singled out, not privileged. Quite a paradox for a society where everyone tries to blend in and be normal.

I've spent several months in Thailand (for study), the Philippines (for obvious reasons) and China now, and I must say that I see a clear pattern with my (probably biased) eyes:
Limited wealth --> limited education --> [ ** ] --> Rampant materialism.
Mobile phones, cars, jewelry, iPads and the like are good indicators of anyone's level of materialism, I think.

The ** is unclear:
1) It could be that people are far more susceptible to consumerism, and their impulsive purchases keep them relatively poor. I can think of many examples of people stealing 'because they are poor', and then spending the money on a Blackberry or iPad.
2) Or maybe they take on simplistic values, and skewed notions of right and wrong. I'm thinking of the catholic church in the Philippines, their corrupt family culture, and consumerism. Women there diet when pregnant, to keep the infant small and prevent 'stretching'. They starve the girls to keep them short and cute, and feed their babies milk powder, because commercials have them believing it's better and more prestigious than breastfeeding.
3) It could be that there is a need to be accepted or infuential in their community, to ensure they are respected, and that the consumption is just a powerful status symbol to that end.

The result is, that in many countries westerners are viewed as materialists. Often, the locals who want to get to know you, are either interested in your money directly, or just want to associate with someone who they think morally justifies egoism, greed, materialism and narcissism. Such people are quite dangerous in my opinion, as they are little more than stubborn overgrown children who don't want to consider the impact of their actions on the community. It has made me quite cautious to meet new people abroad.

 

@coineineagh - wow, you had a tough break. Hope everything goes fine this time!

It reminds me of a (supposedly Swiss) saying that my German language teacher mentioned. It goes "Über Geld spricht/redet man nicht, Geld hat man.""

Basically, you don't speak about money; you have it. If that view still holds, I'd be interested in knowing where it comes from. Maybe Weber's famous protestant work ethic? Or some sort of complex that if you earn less, you are worth less?

 

Coin: Tough luck, man. Although we're apparently in the same boat when Philipino women and money is concerned, if that's any consolation.