Success Is Not the Key to Happiness

            Success is not a word that can be defined unambiguously, for people have contrasting views of what success is and is not. Furthermore, people differentiate between different levels of success, further convoluting the issue. To achieve any consensus whatsoever on a specific example of success, it must be defined perceptually from the eyes of a single cohort of people at a time. However, as a general rule success is measured by a person’s wealth, emotional satisfaction, and/or effect on society.

To emphasize that success must be considered from a single perspective at a time, my paper focuses specifically on how my friend, Tyler, and I view success. Understand that use of the word “I” is meant to further emphasize this point.

            From my perspective, that of someone raised in the upper middle class of a capitalist society, success can be measured most directly by net worth.  When I think of success, I think of names from Forbes’ list of billionaires:  Buffett, Gates, Slim, etc.  In my mind, one of the world’s most successful people is Warren Buffett.  Buffett, “the Oracle of Omaha,” is one of the world’s most prosperous investors—ever. He is currently worth $45 billion due to his shares of Berkshire Hathaway, a company which he has grown by an astounding 434,057% since 1964. 

            Though I believe that net worth is a good measure of success, a more precise measure, in my mind, is net worth versus parents’ net worth.  For instance, if someone were raised in abject poverty I might consider him quite successful if he attained a net worth of $500,000 by age 40, whereas I would typically not consider this to be overly successful.  An example of someone who I would not consider to be successful would be the daughter of a multi-billionaire who decides to become a secretary at a law firm.  Accordingly, a person’s level of success is relative to his upbringing.

            Moreover, a person’s level of success is relative to his earnings compared to the expected earnings for his chosen career.  For instance, I would consider a McDonald’s cashier to be successful—relative to his colleagues—if he invested his salary and attained a net worth of $250,000 by age 30.  Typically this would be an unimpressive feat, from my perspective, but given that the man works as a cashier the feat is impressive.  Conversely, I would consider an investment banker unsuccessful if he worked for 35 years at Goldman Sachs and only managed to attain a net worth of $2 million.   

            As motivational speaker Zig Ziglar said, “Success is doing the best we can with what we have.” Success cannot be compared apples to apples. The daughter of a janitor should not be measured on the same scale as the daughter of a Fortune 500 CEO. Instead, success must be considered on a relative basis that accounts for differences in circumstances.

            To gain another perspective of success I discussed the issue with my friend who was raised on welfare, Tyler. (His dad is disabled.) He maintains that success cannot be adequately measured by net worth or any form of purely monetary evaluation and, moreover, that money does not factor into success directly (but may indirectly); instead, he asserts that success should only be considered from a personal, emotional standpoint (which may or may not take money into account, depending on the person).

To assess his views I presented Tyler with two unconventional examples and asked him whether the people represented were successful or not.

            Firstly, I asked him whether the following person is successful: a wealthy crack dealer who offsets his wrongdoings by funding the educational needs of underprivileged children in Africa and is emotionally satisfied. He told me that since the crack dealer is emotionally satisfied he is emotionally successful; however, the issue of whether he is societally successful was more complicated. On the one hand, the man is dealing crack to society, therefore degrading it. On the other hand, the fact that he deals the crack is not likely to impact who ultimately does the drug: people who want to do drugs can easily find someone to sell them said drugs. We ultimately decided that dealing crack—since crack use is deleterious—is negative to society ipso facto. Next, we explored whether his philanthropy offsets the harm he does to society; we decided that it does (assuming that the total positive effect is greater than or equal to the total negative effect he has on society). The reason for this is relatively simple: The drug dealer is having more of a positive than negative effect; therefore, he is ameliorating the world more than he is deteriorating it. After fully exploring the case Tyler and I decided that the drug dealer is successful in all ways given that his net effect on society is positive, he is emotionally satisfied, and he is monetarily successful (satisfying my main criterion).

            Secondly, I presented two instrument-playing, homeless men who were exactly the same in every way but one. Both homeless men originally aspired to be prominent musicians, but due to unfortunate circumstances for one and transformation of views and, therefore, goals for the other both ended up homeless, street musicians. In order to focus Tyler’s attention specifically on whether the road to an ultimate destination determines how successful a person is upon arrival at said destination, I made it expressly clear that both men relish playing their music for passersby equally, are cognizant that they have made the best of their circumstances, and no longer aspire to fame or fortune—they are both completely satisfied with their present roles in society. Tyler decided that the men are only ostensibly the same, for the paths to their destinations were guided by seemingly diametric forces: compromise one, yet reconsideration the other. The two men’s current situations are not identical; therefore, the homeless man who became a street musician as a result of reforming his goals is more successful than the one who compromised with his goals. In short, the path traveled to reach an end is as important as the end reached.

            Views on success are multifarious but generally involve assessing a person’s level of emotional satisfaction. Even my success metric—net worth—is firmly rooted in what I view to bring about emotional satisfaction—money. As American business man Herman Cain said, “Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.”