It seems that the Sycamores have what everyone wants–the love and acceptance of everyone around them–and what we sometimes (unconciously) believe we can only attain with money and success. Much of this is media driven, which is why it’s so hard to resist.

We have to get back to the question of “who do I want to be”, as opposed to “what do I want to have”. The difference between the two is crucial, but it takes some discernment to recognize it.

I only want enugh so that money does not need to be a “worry” for me or for my family, ever.

That said, I think Steve raises a valid point. Part of what gave the Sycamores the freedom to explore their passions was not just frugality (all living together and sharing, multitasking in rooms, etc), but a strong financial basis. Mr. Sycamore noted that he had been like Mr. Kirby, focused on money, and then walked away from that. After that, he let things take care of themselves–but he had a strong financial foundation on which to do so. In the film, at least, because the land sale isn’t in the play, Mr. Sycamore *owned his home outright* — the only one on the threatened block to do so. In other words, his past financial focus enabled him to toss it all away once he had what he needs.

All the books I have seen about living on a minimal amount of $ a year seem to assume a similar scenario, that one already has the big ticket items–they mention washers, stereos, tools, a good quality car that lasts, sometimes a paid-off house … I am assuming that these folks also have a healthy emergency fund for home repair / equipment failure.

But what about people, like Steve, who follow their bliss but who don’t have (or never had) a strong financial basis to fall back on? Where is the balance between following bliss all one’s life, having enough, and having too much? Should you work at a high-paying job in your 20s and retire in your thirties, even if you loathe the high-paying job? Should you work, then do, then work again? What if what you love never does bring in enough to fill needs — do you reconsider? Depend on the kindness of family?

Any answer, I suspect, is highly personal; what is enough to me might be too little (or too much!)or too scary to someone else, and vice versa.

This is so true. While it is true that we can’t take money with us, how many people are really in a position to “horde” money? So that particular message really only applies to the few, yet it will most likely be misinterpreted by the masses.

Unfortunately in the society that we live in, it is impossible to completely separate Money and Happiness. Therefore money management is imperative.

Of course, the play is slightly different: all that razz about Mr. Kirby trying to buy the property was added in the movie. The play is a straight culture clash. One of the great things that was added to the movie that I liked was how Tony Kirby (the son) wants to be a scientist, but he has to be a business man because of his father. He really wants to investigate how plants can turn light into energy! That sounded kind of silly back then, but pursuing the idea of solar energy is now a “green collar job.” Interesting shift in the times.

The one piece that I am trying to balance now is that of being of service – to my family, clients, readers, community and world.

When I was in my 20’s I lived on a kibbutz in Israel – sort of a communal living farm. It was zero stress for us but it meant no opportunity for our kids. We left for that reason and a few others.

I look back and I am glad that we left. We have a fuller life. I’ve done a better job of providing for my family and the move has allowed me to be more involved in giving back to my community.

Had we stayed on the kibbutz, we’d have been to able to live very frugally and we wouldn’t have felt much financial stress but it would have been very costly in terms of life experiences.

That balance….its’ hard to codify.