How Much Is Enough?

4. Enough is never enough. The ultimate question that we were asking was "How much is enough?" The ultimate answer appears to be that there is no such thing as "enough": The more people have, the more they want. As Shoshana Zuboff observes in her Short Course, "enoughness" is "a moving target": The rich are no more able to achieve it than those who are less well-off. Indeed, when asked how much extra income would free them from money concerns, high-income respondents (those earning $100,000 or more) were five times as likely to pick a high figure ($90,000-plus) as their lower-income counterparts (those earning less than $40,000).

We also asked people to designate various goods and services either as a marker of success or as a sign of excess -- and a similar pattern emerged: The more money people made, the more likely they were to view expensive cars, big houses, and dinners at fancy restaurants as their just deserts. Flying the family to Vail for a ski vacation? That's a sign of success. Having a vacation home? Success. A home theater? Borderline, but the rich -- the male rich, especially -- think that a home theater is simply a fruit of success. Lower-income respondents tended to view such things as excessive. One explanation: The BMW and the $500,000 house simply seem out of reach to them. Ultimately, poorer people -- and, in a number of cases, women -- are more inclined to accept limits on their ability to have stuff: 70% of those who make $40,000 a year or less, and 67% of female respondents, agreed that learning to live on less money is an important factor in achieving balance in their lives.

5. But too much is no good. Survey respondents agreed that having more money paves the way to work-life balance, but they also displayed a sense of unease about the implications of that viewpoint. In fact, people are not altogether comfortable with the habits of acquisitiveness and consumerism -- or even with the drive to make more money.

To test the limits of "enoughness," we proposed a scenario: "Pat" is offered a job opportunity at a hot startup. There's a clear trade-off: long hours in exchange for the chance to cash in big when the company goes public. When we framed the choice simply as one involving two alternative paths, 59% of respondents said that Pat should take the high-risk, high-reward road. But when we gave Pat a working spouse and kids, and then posed the question again, 43% of respondents said that taking the new job would amount to "losing sight of what's important."

For most people, apparently, it's far simpler to establish the line between success and excess when other people's lives are under the microscope. We presented another scenario, this one involving "the Johnsons," a couple who both work at rewarding, high-paying jobs, who can afford to dine out often and to go on great family trips -- but who log long hours at work and who rarely see their kids during the week. Respondents vigorously disapproved of the Johnsons' way of life: 59% agreed that this lifestyle is one that society pressures us to pursue, and only 8% said that they would want it for themselves. In effect, respondents said that success is fine -- but not when it comes at the expense of family.

A Dream of Enough

So what does this survey tell us? More than anything, it offers a clear indication of the deeply etched fault lines in American life -- and the equally deep instincts and compulsions that color our choices. We want to have it all: More money -- and more time. More success -- and a more satisfying family life. More creature comforts -- and more sanity. We can work hard, we can find love and have a family, and we can enjoy the fruits of our success. We take for granted at least the possibility of winning at everything.

At the same time, in moments of clarity, we know that something has to give. More of one thing will eventually mean less of something else. There will be squeezes and hardships along the way -- tough choices and unpleasant compromises. Of course, we wish that it weren't so: 71% of respondents said that they don't want to have to make trade-o/s in order to achieve balance. But we're willing to accept those trade-o/s, given the promise of achieving something better: 68% said that they are "working extra-hard right now to try and get somewhere."

Taken as a whole, the survey results indicate another kind of balance -- a dynamic tension between hope and futility. We are, after all, a race of strivers: We're always running harder -- and we're often willing to sacrifice resources in the present in order to pursue greatness in the future.

For the moment -- which is all that we can see clearly -- most of us are prepared to embrace this precarious blend of wanting and having, of getting and spending, and to call it "balance." We believe that at some point, having "more" of something -- more money, more self-knowledge -- will change the game in a way that yields a new style of work, a new way of life, and a new sense of personal freedom. Then, at last, we will have it all.

Whether or not this new reality will ever actually arrive doesn't seem all that relevant. For the moment, it's a dream -- and that seems to be enough.

Visit Roper Starch Worldwide on the Web (http://www.roper.com).