Faced with money, the Americans are more and more greedy, the French more and more resigned. The reasons are deep

©Asif HASSAN / AFP

Relationships with money depend a lot on culture, history and even religious practices, but relationships with money are closely linked to the economic system and in particular to the role of the State and the weight of the social model.

A very recent survey published by Empower on Americans’ attitudes towards money reveals that 60% of them believe that money is the key to happiness. And the more money they earn, the greater their happiness. Therefore, Americans always want to earn more. The median income of American households is around 74,000 dollars, or 67,000 euros, but Americans say that to be very happy, they would need 4 times as much. Millennials (the generation born between 1980 and 1995) are very greedy (they put the price of access to happiness at more than $500,000 per year, four times more than what previous generations want to earn, and Z). Note that men are more ambitious than women, almost twice as much ($380,000 versus 182,000). #MeToo has not gone through the salary box, at least not yet. But what is new is that the majority of Americans think that, alongside annual income, what matters is the existence of a level of wealth. On average, happiness and security require having a level of accumulated wealth equivalent to more than 3 times annual income, or $1.6 million. For millennials, this may be home, and it’s often a bank account or financial portfolio. Those who come to power in the business world are the greediest. It’s the perfect way to feel safe. It must be said that zero rates and easy money over the last ten years have given them the means.

On the French side, money does not buy happiness, and if money contributes to it, we don’t say it. Attitudes are therefore very different, demands for salary increases are strong, but the pressure is especially strong during periods of inflation, such as in recent months. Their relationship with money has been the subject of numerous studies, but we do not perceive such a direct link between money or wealth and personal happiness. The last very detailed investigation dates back to the end of last year. It was produced by the IFOP at the request of the magazine Point in the midst of an economic and social crisis (after the post-COVID rebound).

First of all, the French seem more uninhibited than in previous years, 83% of them associate money with pleasure, well-being, and fulfillment too. Money therefore appears less and less taboo, but still very politically marked, the sympathizers of France Insoumise appearing more severe, they associate money with injustice and corruption. But overall, despite a more positive image, money does not appear to be the exclusive engine of happiness. Money is in last position in the acknowledged hierarchy of well-being factors behind family, housing and “friends”. The rich, the real ones, still arouse negative feelings, but less violent than at the beginning of the century, because wealth is increasingly represented as the dividend of talent (sporting or artistic) or linked to individual success. , thus benefiting from a form of legitimacy. What is very clear is that even today, whatever the level of annual income, the French prefer to save as much money as possible rather than spend it. The savings mass is a marker of worry about the future.

The comparison between American and French behavior is instructive.

– First, Americans’ appetite for individual money in annual income and accumulated wealth comes primarily from the fact that they must individually manage risks related to health and life’s ups and downs. Social security does not exist; you have to pay for insurance and build up your retirement. You also have to pay for your children’s school and university. When in Europe and particularly in France we take into account all the public services which are free, we see that they very significantly correct the differential. The French do not manage their retirement, their social and health insurance, public school, etc., etc. responsibly.

– Then, we must know and remember that in France and Europe, it is taxes and social security contributions that pay for these services. More than 50% of daily life escapes individual responsibility and is socialized. If public services worked perfectly well, there would be no problem. But since public services are failing, public opinion is supporting less and less the tax burden that this represents.

– Finally, we are in Europe and in France particularly faced with a paradoxical situation that is less and less bearable. On the one hand, public services are free, but they cost more and more in taxes. On the other hand, disappointed French people worry about their future and no longer feel safe. Hence a considerable proportion to be saved (nearly 20%) while the tax burden is already too heavy. Under these conditions, requests for salary increases are obviously legitimate. The corollary of this development would be to leave it to individuals to manage health and social risks and to reduce the tax burden. Politically, the political class is not ready for it. This is the problem in France and more generally in Europe which will have to revise the scope of State action and improve the functioning of its administration.