About Money

The Choice to Be Wealthy - an interview for the magazine Psiholoģijas Pasaule (Psychology World) Author: Zane Siliņa Date: early 2000s

How would you define: what is money? The most important thing is not — what it is, but — that it is. It is possible that a large part of problems arise because people, even though money exists, pretend that it does not. They do not pay it adequate attention or somehow do not treat it appropriately. Problems can also arise from going to the other extreme — if a person assigns money greater value than it deserves. Why is it difficult for many people to ask for money for their work? I think it is most closely related to self-esteem, when a person thinks: what I have done means nothing; what I have done is just a trifle. Perhaps it is not exactly the classic low self-esteem that psychologists talk about, but in any case it is inadequate self-esteem. For example, I provide someone with a consultation or share knowledge, or help accomplish something — but I do not appreciate that what I have done is good, that it is valuable, that its value is measurable in such a relatively neutral unit of exchange as money. Money could be something that helps evaluate things. So you believe — the more valuable what was done, the more money one should ask for it? Yes, that is one way to evaluate how valuable a particular job, service, or product is. That is also money’s function — the first and primary one — to assign some value to services, products, and everything else. Moreover, it is one and the same measure. You cannot add apples and pears together, but in monetary terms you can add the price of apples to the price of pears. Money helps compare. For example, how much you pay for one psychologist’s consultation and how much you pay for a visit to the hairdresser, and how much you pay for one lunch. It is the same money, the same lats. You can compare immediately. Or — how many hours do you have to work at your paid job to cover one hour with a psychologist. Is it a one-to-one ratio, or perhaps you have to work two hours to pay for one hour with a psychologist? Or perhaps you have to work an entire day? Money is in some sense an absolute unit of measurement for all things that would otherwise be difficult to compare. Yes, but what is the point of volunteer work? What is the point of things people do for free, and these are by no means unimportant things? Certainly not everything that is done is done for money. Things are also done for other reasons. Other reasons may include, for example, learning or guilt: I feel guilty about something and then try to atone by doing something good — for free. Or it could be some sense of social justice or brotherhood. Or it is learning — by working for free, I learn something. For example, when I was still studying, I went to volunteer, simply sitting beside a psychiatrist working with Chernobyl survivors. Essentially I did nothing there, just sat and listened. Later I helped her write paperwork. I went there regularly, two or three times a week. I received no money for it. What I received in return was experience. That is one of the things volunteers gain. Two more things could be mentioned — one, referencing Rainis: “One can gain by taking, one can gain by giving…” Volunteers gain by giving. They get some kind of high from it, some emotional satisfaction. And one more thing — although I cannot cite any research here — in my opinion, some people volunteer also because they do not know how to ask for money. A person wants to do exactly this work but does not consider themselves skilled enough to do it professionally — so volunteering is one way to access work that they enjoy and find interesting. People often complain that they do not have money. Why do people choose a low-paying profession, knowing full well that they will not be able to fully support themselves? One reason might be that by choosing a low-paying profession, they have more opportunity to blame the situation for their failures. They say: at work they pay me so little, that is why I am poor. But you phrased the question interestingly — you asked why people choose low-paying professions. They choose it themselves. They choose to have little money. A person very interestingly chooses a situation where they end up suffering. Consciously, no one chooses suffering, yet if you look at it, they themselves have chosen it. No one forced them into that job. They themselves agreed to work, signed the employment contract, go there every day, do not leave, do not look for anything better. And if they do look, then for something equally bad. As a result, the totality of their actions indicates that they choose to stay. They choose to not improve their material circumstances in any way. Why do people choose to be poor? Mostly, I think, it is fear. Fear of responsibility. There is a tendency: the more responsibility, the higher the salary, and the higher the salary, the more responsibility. It also works the other way — the more money you have, the more responsibly you have to spend it. If you have little money, in some sense you have less responsibility — you pay for the apartment, pay for food, and that is it. Nothing is left over. There is nothing to choose, it is elementary. But if you have more money, there is greater responsibility for how to spend it. If you have decided to spend 100 lats on a telephone, you immediately think — which one should I actually buy, this is for the long term, and if I buy it, it will not be easy to exchange. If you have to spend a thousand or a few thousand on a car, that is even more responsible. And what about spending a few tens of thousands on a house? Because ideally you buy a house once in a lifetime. Paradoxically, it seems: the less money, the simpler it is to make decisions. In a way, yes. The more money, the greater the freedom. The greater the freedom, the greater the possibility of making mistakes. The greater the possibility of mistakes, the more anxiety, the greater chance of making the wrong decision. If there is little money — then we simply cannot do otherwise, we have no other choice. Consequently, a person does not have to choose; they have placed themselves as a victim of their own self-created circumstances and live that way. That is one reason why people avoid having more money. The second is the prejudice that being poor is noble, patriotic, and good, while being rich is bad. And all those who are rich got their money in some dishonest way, and every person, especially under these conditions of “wild capitalism,” has two choices: either be honest and poor, or be rich and dishonest. In reality that is not the case — there are two more options: being honest and rich, and being dishonest and poor. The last one probably interests no one. But there is also the possibility of being rich and honest; people simply do not think about it. They think: if I become rich, I will have to be dishonest, and I do not want to be dishonest. If we look at the school literature curriculum, in Latvian literature virtually all positive characters are poor, and all negative characters are rich. One must consider the history of the Latvian people. Initially, the rich were Germans, who were colonizers, oppressors. Then, during the Soviet era, those who were slightly wealthier were deported or shot… So being rich was dangerous. In the late Soviet period, in our childhood, in the seventies, it was the same — if something appeared that you could not have bought with your salary, it was immediately suspicious. There was equality, but such that everyone was equally badly off. If you somehow broke out of this equality, started, for example, growing tulips or doing something else, God forbid, speculating in jeans or records, it was immediately suspicious. You could end up on the police’s radar, and that was risky. Perhaps this attitude has been somehow ingrained in us. That is how we grew up, and we have only been out of it for 10 years. Thinking does not change that quickly. So some time needs to pass for attitudes to change. There are two attitudes! One is the collective, social, the general public opinion about what it means to be poor — whether that is good or whether it is better to be rich. The collective consciousness aspect that all rich people are not crooks needs to change. The other is individual consciousness: I too can be rich, I too can change. Despite the fact that my parents were servants, workers, that in our family history no one has ever owned anything, everyone has lived hand to mouth. Despite that, purely individually, I make the decision that with me this ends. I will be rich. I will live a dignified human life — being free, working, and receiving fair compensation. So both the collective, public opinion must change, and individually one must make the decision concerning oneself: I too can do this. There is a good example. Let us imagine two 40-year-old men. One is a former entrepreneur, the other a former factory worker who worked at a lathe all his life, until 40. Both have lost. One has lost his job, been laid off because the factory went bankrupt; the other’s own business has gone bankrupt, he has lost a million, is still in debt, and so on. Both have been left by their wives. Now they are both “high and dry.” Neither has money, neither has anything, both are living with friends somewhere — completely “at zero.” Both are the same age, and even in appearance and education they do not differ significantly. But here is what differs — one is thinking about how to start a new business and earn the next million, while the other is thinking about where to find a new factory job. This difference is only in their heads, not in their abilities or circumstances. It is only desire, only will. Only an idea. As it is written in the Bible: “In the beginning was the Word.” The Word — an idea, a thought. The thought of finding a new job or the thought of how to earn the next million. Does not earning that million carry a risk of abandoning one’s values? Often a person, chasing money, gives up their dreams. For example, they go to study not what interests them, but what is profitable. I hold rather idealistic views. I believe that the best way to earn that million is by doing what you love. The most dignified human way is to earn money through what is your heart’s calling. Every person is unique. Every person has completely unique abilities that no one else has. From this follows an interesting conclusion: every person has something that only they can do — one can assume that every person has come to this earth with some particular mission. If they do not fulfill this mission, no one else can do it in their place. Because every person is unique. No one else has that set of abilities, that set of knowledge, that attitude, that totality. And if they do not realize it, if they go off to earn a million, it remains undone. On the other hand, if they realize their abilities, what has been given or destined for them, then in other respects everything will be fine with them too. Because the world is fair. Interestingly, this conviction of mine is directly opposite to the views of other colleagues — psychologists, psychotherapists. But the longer I live, the longer I work, the more convinced I become of this. The world is fair. This means that everyone receives what they have earned. This applies to both happiness and wealth, as well as to unhappiness and poverty. Returning to mission — if a person does what they must do, if they take into account all of reality rather than only selected parts of it, then everything will certainly be fine. But it also happens that a person knows their mission or dream, but lacks certain abilities that are necessary, or there are some difficult circumstances — for example, they live deep in the countryside where it is hard to realize their plans… Again, you say: there are no circumstances! There are circumstances! A person creates their own circumstances. There are no externally created circumstances. The only circumstances we do not influence are those at the moment of birth. If we are born, then we are born here, in Latvia. If we are born now, then it is the year 2003. That can no longer be changed. We cannot change our sex. (Although even that can now be changed — with various surgical operations.) Creating everything else is within human power. One can create circumstances both in the countryside and in the city. One can go and learn. For example, I cannot understand beggars on the streets. He has no leg. He sits there, exposing his prosthesis, and asks for money. I walk past and think: old man, that leg is no reason why you do not work. You have a head! That is much more important. Interestingly, no one on the street complains about lacking a head… If a person wants, they can do anything. Absolutely anything. If they want. The problem is that they do not want. The difference is that a person says: “I would like. I would like things to be good. I would like to have a higher salary.” Interestingly, there is even a linguistic difference: I would like (if I had the opportunity to want) versus I want (here and now). I think in Latvian the word sounds so powerful: I want! WANT! It is such a strong word. But “would like” is already so limp. If a person wants, they can do anything. Returning again to God — God created man in His own image and likeness. God also created this world. Man is like God. This means that there is no other being that is more powerful than man. God is omnipotent, and man is no less omnipotent. If he wants. But the problem is that people do not know what they want, and if they do want, then something… not quite right. Similarly, I have often encountered a situation where someone complaining about their poor income is asked — but how much do you actually want to earn? The answer most often is — I do not know. Well, and the result is corresponding. Nothing changes. Because there is no idea, no will, no action, no results. People often feel that only one thing is possible — either I can realize my dreams, or earn that million. I cannot get both. An interesting question is whether a million is always necessary. I think not. The main thing every person needs is a dignified human life. And a million does not mean a dignified life. If you set yourself a goal of earning a million, then of course, it is very good to have such a goal. (Even better if you set a goal with a deadline for earning the million.) The question is: but then what? What do I need a million for? It is good to ensure dignified living conditions. But what do dignified living conditions mean? Is it dignified to spend the best part of your life, 8 waking hours, in some room, some institution, doing something that is not enjoyable? Working for someone else, for some other rich person’s benefit? Earning them money and receiving a salary for it? Giving them the best part of your life? And then living in some tiny concrete cage, eating synthetic food from supermarkets, giving your children to be raised by strangers… Is that dignified? And then every evening “zombifying” in front of the television. Here the million is no longer important. Much more important is freedom. When a person is free, they can choose what they want and live as they wish. So that they are joyful and happy and so that their children are happy, and so that those around them are happy too. Does money give freedom or does it restrict? Earlier we talked about — if you have more money, you can spend it as you wish, money seems to give you freedom. But there is another risk: this is especially well illustrated by all the leases, credits, and so on. For example, a mobile phone, a car, a computer, all the nice things, a kitchen appliance, a washing machine, and so on — all this costs quite a lot of money. You can buy it. Gibran has a good saying: “Comfort enters your home first as a guest. Then it becomes a permanent resident, and then — the master.” That is, you begin to serve your own comfort. You have become accustomed to such a level of comfort that you can no longer afford to earn less, because then your comfort level will drop. And if you buy comfort with the large amount of money you have earned, then you have literally sold yourself into slavery to your own comfort. If I have a mobile phone, I need to earn enough to pay for all the calls. If I also have internet at home with a permanent connection, I need to earn enough to pay for that. So I am no longer free, I can no longer afford to earn less for one month. Yes, exactly the same applies to all credits. If you take a loan for five, ten, or — even worse — for thirty years, it means that for all those 30 years you have in some sense already sold yourself into slavery. You will have to earn enough to pay for all of it. Here I do not know — does money make you free? Or does it not? On one hand, seemingly yes, on the other hand — no. I think it is not real freedom, it is a kind of illusory freedom. But to truly understand the saying “Money does not bring happiness,” I think only those who have had money can do that. Because everyone else has only heard it, it is not their personal experience. The same thing Aesop’s fox says about the grapes — they are sour. If a person has experienced it personally, then they can understand. Money is not what brings happiness. Solomon wrote about this very well in Ecclesiastes: I have seen all this, but it is not it… It is not what makes a person happy. Freedom is when every person can do what they like, as much as they want. Do work they love and earn enough with it to live in dignified conditions and be sufficiently happy. I think that is possible. And if that happened, the world would be a much better place. To what extent are spiritual and material values interconnected, and to what extent are they in contradiction? I think there is no contradiction between them. The contradiction arises in how people treat them. Speaking in existential terms, spiritual and material values are different manifestations of human existence, being, presence. Human life has physical, social, psychological, and spiritual dimensions. The material and the spiritual are different dimensions of life. They both belong to our lives. There is no contradiction between them. Contradictions arise when a person focuses on one while ignoring the other — focusing on the material while ignoring the spiritual, or focusing on the spiritual while ignoring the material. That is going from one ditch to the other. I believe good results cannot be achieved in any domain while ignoring the other domain. You cannot achieve truly good results materially if you ignore the spiritual. Perhaps you do achieve the material goal, but you are unhappy. Is it worth it? Or the other way around — if you try to achieve it only in the spiritual dimension, when, for example, some “spiritual sages” gather and decide: this is the brilliant wise one, he can recite the entire Bible or the entire Quran from memory. But if you look realistically, he cannot walk by himself, they bring food to his bed, he cannot take care of his own needs — then the question is: is it worth it? What for? And is that dignified? It is rather more worthwhile to be able to walk and enjoy flowers and be able to take care of oneself. The contradiction is that certain components of reality are being ignored. Problems arise when people ignore such a component of reality as money, or when they ignore such a component of reality as spirituality. It took me quite a long time to understand that a certain material foundation is needed to access spiritual values. For example, if I want to read books, I need money to buy them. Just as you need sufficiently good health and sufficiently good eyesight. This is well illustrated by two legends from Zen Buddhist history. The patriarch Bodhidharma, who brought Buddhism from India to China, was once sitting and meditating. At one point he fell asleep. He was so angry about it that he cut off his eyelids and threw them aside, and from them grew a tea plant. Since then, monks drink tea while meditating to keep their spirits alert and not fall asleep. You see, falling asleep is a purely physical phenomenon. Your body simply shuts down and falls asleep. But he ignored that. Therefore, to somehow improve it, tea is drunk to keep the body alert. The other legend is about how all Eastern martial arts — wushu, kung fu, and others — originated. Bodhidharma saw that his students, the monks, were falling asleep and could not meditate for long hours each day, so he devised some exercises that could keep their bodies in proper shape so they could meditate. The same precondition: a sound mind in a sound body! Just so. If a person consciously chooses how to shape their life, if they do what they must do, if they take into account both the spiritual and the material, neither paying too much attention nor ignoring anything — then everything will be fine. Both they themselves will be happy, and the world will become a better place.