Enough

I'm intrigued by the concept of 'enough'. It's something I've been hearing a lot about lately.. I suppose in the things I've been reading, the messages I've been hearing, etc.

Human nature will inherently handle the task of self-preservation. Looking out for number one isn't so much a decision as it is an instinct. When you're in danger, you defend yourself. When you're hungry, you find food. But that pendulum has swung far past centre in our society. It's a basic business concept that we maximize our profits. In any given scenario, the engrained ideology is to figure out what would be considered 'over the line', and then land just below it.

The challenge, then, is to decipher what will scare a potential client away, in terms of a dollar amount, and then to charge just below it. To forever exist in that zone in which your clients are willing to pony up not because they're necessarily comfortable with your terms, but because you're good at what you do, and therefore worth the financial pain. As your skillset, your reputation, your general scale of business increases, the line moves accordingly.

The question that plagues me is a moral one. To what end do we push this ideology? The simple, christianese understanding is that "if I have all the money, then I can decide what's done with it..." the assumption being that my making more money, and thus distributing said money in an appropriate, other-centered fashion, is the best of all options.

Is it possible to exist in this society, and in a business environment, specifically, with an overarching idea of how much is enough? Can a guy realign his focus so as to decide how much he wants to live on, and how much he needs, and then allow those decisions to dictate the way in which he conducts his business?

The devil's advocate asks, "What about responsibility? You have an opportunity to increase your value, and thus, your influence. Aren't you putting a ceiling on your potential, and, thus, your usefulness?"

Maybe, yes.

But drawing an immediate line between wealth and influence is also a misnomer. Money allows us to do things. Money accomplishes aid, and relief, and charity. But the need for charity, for aid, often exists as a result of unequal distribution of wealth. To continually pursue increased financial gains in an effort to allow oneself to aid those who may have otherwise benefited from a less self-centered approach in the first place... that's a vicious circle.

As an ideal, what does a world look like where we know our needs, and we're cognizant of how much is "enough"?

The devil's advocate also asks, "What about wisdom? When you fall on hard times, twenty years of living with 'enough' isn't going to help you. What about security?" But then, that just comes back to the idea of "enough". Security and startling wealth often toy dangerously with synonymity on this side of the world. Our "security" has no relevance in light of a larger world view.

Understanding "enough" could be a game-changer.

JB