For long, a considerable majority of the lower-income stratum, or the ‘have-nots’, so to speak, has fallaciously held the belief that the accumulation of a certain amount of material wealth would set a person free from the bondage of labor perpetually. This misperception has been evoked due to a tunneled observational insight into a particular aspect of the upper stratum’s (the super rich), or the ‘haves’, life—their access to, and in some cases indulgence in, lavishness. As it has been further embedded into the ‘have-nots’ crowd’s psyche, courtesy of social media influencers.
The subject matter of the observation, i.e. the indulgent lifestyle, is true. The problem, however, is in the scope of the observation being fragmentary. Therefore, the insight becomes susceptible to the very same errors and fallacies, those would generate from incoherent ‘abstraction out of context’ with respect to literary interpretation and analysis.
Some would delve into abstraction to the extent that the original author would fail to recognize his work as his own—the result of misrepresentation. For context is the great vehiculum of intent, without which the latter is incapable of integration with reason, and is accordingly rendered incommunicable to the audience; as such, the entire meaning of the work is lost.
Likewise, given the preponderant power social media nowadays have on our analytical as well as judgmental faculties, the social media trace, or imprint, of high-profile and affluent people—objectively (of a directional singularity i.e. ‘one-way’, that is) patched together, designed, and polished—chiefly presented by influencers and/or some ‘so-called’ motivational groups and pages (not the high-profile individuals themselves)—erects a beguiling high pedestal upon which the ‘haves’ presumably have the potential to rest ‘carefree’ and not work for another single day ever again.
The misperception is elicited from the continual exposure to visual and audio inputs flowing in a singular direction—up stream—all the while omitting the associated cost thereto. We witness all those visual and audio posts and stories feeding us fragments of reality about how this or that person could spend this amount of millions and hundreds of millions a day, and yet remain insanely affluent. They also incorporate the adversity that person has overcome to reach that status—which is portrayed as the only cost corresponding to their success—in order to boost the credibility of the post or story.
What they choose to leave out of this euphoric portrait is, the cost of maintenance or, as it is referred to in common language, the ‘upkeep’ expenses required to sustain that lifestyle.
Conventional wisdom has taught us that there’s nothing such as free lunch. The human social experience is built in its entirety upon the principle of tradeoff. Expense is a conditio sine qua non for acquisition per se. An imbecile alone would entertain the irrational thought that something could be maintained, after it has been acquired, for free.
If a billionaire owns a mansion, a yacht, and a fleet of supercars, in addition to a private jet, or several of these, their upkeep would sum up to millions of dollars (if not hundreds of millions, annually); not to mention taxes; and, let alone financing, investing, and operating expenses requisite to keep his business(es) running.
Expenses are directly proportional to assets. Should that billionaire choose to cease working indefinitely—i.e. literally reducing his productivity output to null—they would inevitably go bankrupt at best or indebted at worst.
To put it numerically, if our billionaire has $80 million annual cost to maintain his pool of luxurious possessions and satisfy his expensive taste for consumables; then, in the case where his net worth is substantially reduced to $30 million (the result of the cessation of cash inflow); and, yet he opts not to radically alter his lifestyle; he would be $50 million in the red, annually.
Notwithstanding, the average low-income person would still perceive that as being RICH!
In a nutshell, the considerable majority of the ‘have-nots’ are prone to fall for the illusory utopian correlation between material want and wealth vis-á-vis work: that possessing a certain amount of material wealth would eliminate a person’s want for good, and perpetuate a carefree lifestyle without the need to work. It is a fallacious misperception at par, for it fails to account for the essential catalyst for such a lifestyle—its commensurate upkeep cost.
Reference
James, Tracy. “Luca Pacioli the ‘Father of Accounting’.” Success Tax Professionals, 24 Oct. 2016, www.stptax.com/luca-pacioli-the-father-of-accounting/.
