Kind of a multi-faceted question here which would perhaps even be best discerned by the individual reader as to what they be.

Now clearly there is a difference of scenario between a man on the street with barely enough food or water for the day who hinges solely on the kindness of strangers passing by for him not to perish and a man with multiple high-end properties who dines on exotic dishes anytime he pleases. They call this in no modest slang terms "having 'f**k you' money". Presumably because instead of flicking someone off or insulting them you could simply pay them to go away or do something foolish perhaps embarrassing without it affecting you in any way.

But for purposes of this question let's discern an "average" person. Has a roof over their head that is more or less likely to be there for a reasonable period of time, be it apartment or residence, fully paid off or not, They have enough food and water to eat and live properly and have a more or less balanced work/life schedule, even if not as they would please it to be. They also have reliable transportation as well as more or less the same basic goods and subscription to services as their neighbors do and on occasion start budgeting to save up for something nice and unique to their social circle of friends and neighbors. They've been on vacations before, if not by careful budgeting and sacrifice, and could reasonably go on another in not too long a period of time. Basically, they have everything they need, many things they want, yet only due to the fact they budget and spend responsibility, meaning if they did not do these things, they might soon find themselves in a moderate degree of financial trouble. I suppose one might call this "middle class" and explicitly "not wealthy".

Now compare this to someone who lives under a bridge, whose circumstances are quite precarious, yet always is able to get just enough to eat or drink, be it by government stipend, food banks, or generosity of those more fortunate. Essentially, the certainty and relative security distinctly absent compared to the situation of the former or "average" individual. What of this man?

I find it reasonable to believe, with the right mindset, a man who perhaps made the conscious and willful choice to not have a family by his, and only his, own volition and not due to financial circumstance, conscious or unconscious, can live a happy, healthy life in a relatively small apartment from birth to dotage, provided the complications and difficulties that come with old age are not a factor (are mitigated).

Is this not reasonable? Is it perhaps the envy one naturally feels (especially toward one of unscrupulous character, perhaps even of personal ire) when another seems to have so much more physical assets and resources, which presumably equates a better and therefore happier life?

Sure, absent of devout religious or otherwise metaphysical views of an afterlife, it is doubtful one can actively be starving to death on the side of a road and perhaps by ignoring or minimizing the physical pains and sufferings as "transient" or "insignificant", truly feel the sense of "happiness" or at least "contentedness" the rich man feels in his castle of a abode amongst the opulence of his private wine cellar and security of his personal waitstaff. Or can he? Why or why not?

What do you think? Come on TPF, let's press the issue.

Note: This is not a question pertinent to money or the idea of money or currency itself, rather an idea of resources or belongings or perhaps even "power" or influence. Relevant discussion points in this topic should be universal in any scenario whether traditional money or currency does or does not exist in it.