However, we make statements like ‘Being happy is better than being rich’, when we have money. But being rich gives us the freedom and privilege to do things that makes us happy. Being rich gives us the power to do things that we want to do.

In many parts of world, people slog whole day simply to earn money equivalent to a couple of dollars. The work for more than 12 hours a day, hardly sparing any time to spend with their family. Yet, when we ask these people if they are happy, they say they are. The fact is, some are happy, many are not. But they move on with life. For those people, happiness simply means earning enough to satisfy their hunger.

We always compare happiness with richness and poorness, simply because we aren’t really aware what poverty is. When someone asks you the question ‘Happiness or Richness’, you say you are ready to give up anything against happiness. This is because you don’t know how it feels to be hungry for long hours. You don’t how it feels when you children don’t get enough to fill their stomach.

In such situations, when food is more important than a smile, when a fighting cold is preferred over a healthy laugh, it’s very difficult to choose happiness.

In my opinion, the right question should be ‘basic necessities’ or happiness? Until you don’t have food, you don’t think of happiness. The battle fought by poor is ’surviving’, not living.

When you are struggling with your finances, you don’t really care whether you are happy or sad, angry or calm, patient or impatient. The only thing that matters is earning money to meet expenses for eating food, living under a roof, and having at least a pair of clothes to wear. And if you don’t have money for this, you cannot be happy at all. So, does giving up money makes you happy? I don’t think so.

On the other hand, by asking this question, I don’t think we give proper justice to ‘money’ that we have earned by working hard. Why do you want to give up money for happiness? Can’t we have it both together.

Even if we are rich, we have struggled a lot to become so, haven’t we? The path to riches was difficult. So, why do you want to give it up so easily?

Alright, we do we make such comparisons, in the first place? We sometimes feel all the unhappiness in life is caused and money is the root of all evil.

Think about this: You don’t have money to eat food, and no one offers you food without exchanging money. Later, you find some money that helped you satiate your hunger, is money still evil? Not at all.

The fact is, when you start earning more, your behavior changes dramatically, which causes most unhappiness in your life. Don’t blame money if you can’t handle it.

Very little is, however, known about who you are as a person, if you are gauged depending on the wealth you have accumulated. If you are termed as a ‘millionaire’, it describes nothing about you, except your ability to make money. Net worth, today, means how much do you have financially. What about the other traits one has? Aren’t they his assets?

Okay, let’s leave the ‘traits aspect’ out of court for a while. Net worth is defined quite narrowly. You cannot neglect net income as well. It is something that defines your financial well being, your financial standing. This means, if you have your net income higher than your net worth, you are doing well. You can have a good financial picture even if you exclude all these concepts. This is because all these figures don’t include an important element of your wealth – The Human Capital. Human capital is something that defines your ability to earn money in future. Isn’t it your asset? It is, by every means.

Recently, a very good article about human capital was posted by New York Times. You possess a strong human capital, you can earn easily in future and hence, you don’t have to take much financial risk. If you, however, don’t have much of this capital, you would have to strive hard and ultimately, have to take higher risk to reach the same level within same time. So, the exposure of risk varies inversely to the amount of human capital one possesses.

Gauging human capital is not hard either. It can be measured by the stability of your current job and the capability to seek and acquire a new, secured job irrespective of the economic conditions and unemployment rate. Human capital also includes flexibility of your skills, that is, ability to work in multiple industries. For instance, if you are working as a mortgage agent, your job security is limited to the real estate industry. However, if you are employed as a financial analyst, you can get a job anywhere, in any industry. So, the human capital of an analyst is definitely higher than that of the mortgage broker.

Human capital of an individual also increases as he leads toward retirement. Old people might not be filled with the amount of enthusiasm and energy possessed by a young person. Also, the career path of an old employee is quite unstable as they don’t have many years left to work. Hence, a young employee has higher human capital than an old one.

One reason why the green revolution seems to have caught on to Americans, and maybe the global citizens, is because it seems to elicit virtuous acts from people. By doing these environmentally conscious acts people feel that they are doing well for their society as its responsible citizens. But to what extent do the values evoked in us by environmental consciousness actually undergo transference to other spheres of life? By buying green we might feel clean but in the process are we acting worse than before? This is the way some of us have started thinking. Nina Mazhar and Chen-Bo-Zong of the University of Toronto have conducted a study correlating buying green and general morality. They asked students to buy or simply look at green products in conventional and specialist stores. Some students bought the greens while others simply observed. They were given $6 each for sharing with friends. It seems the ones who actually bought the green products were less generous with their $6 than those who did not buy green products. In another study those who shopped at green stores engaged in criminal activities than those who shopped at conventional stores.

I ask, what has buying green got to do with morality? Why should a person who prefers to buy green products be ideally a saint? People might be opting for green products, not only because they feel environmentally responsible but because they are conscious about their personal health. If the motive behind buying green is personal health, why should it be ideally considered as though it is done with altruistic intentions alone? Naturally, such people cannot be expected to show out-of-the-way morality in other situations. Environmentally responsible behavior is no doubt practiced by those who want to contribute their share in improving the environment. But who is benefited ultimately by this? The individual, of course! For example, if you help in keep your atmosphere free of pollutants, you are the ultimate beneficiary because you get to breathe the fresh air. The motive is therefore collective welfare and not welfare of others alone as it is made out to be. Since we are not opting for green for moral purposes alone, how can we link it to morality at all?