I don't think it's that simple. It's possible that you don't like what your life has become, but still wouldn't give your money away because that would make you even more unhappy. It's a nice problem to have, but we shouldn't trivialize the human psychology, just try to understand it. Nobody is completely rational, and even if part of them is rational, they will always have an emotional part. Choosing to be childless for instance, is pretty much the rational choice for many people, but that doesn't mean that would make them happy.
I completely agree, that is what I meant by saying that it is a valid complaint.
My disagreement with the article is simply that saying its better to be rich than not is understating it.
Of course wealth is not a panacea to the human condition. It is however a better way of living by at least an order of magnitude than the average middle class life in the harsh, socially atomized globalized economy of the developed world. At median income levels in a nation such as the US, essentials like proper health care, education and marital stability are difficult to grasp.
oh yea for sure. Then again, assuming you're not born into it, I would assume it's difficult to just give away a large portion of the wealth you've accumulated through hard work. There is also the 'rainy day fund'...which signifies another point the author made about worrying about investments. If he loses his money, and suddenly needs it there is a significant amount of regret.
You have to compare the worry over potentially losing investments to the worry of not having any investments or rainy day fund at all and being totally at the capricious mercy of an often cruel and arbitrary economy with a minimal safety net.
