I suppose that is true. However, I see money as giving me the ability to not have to do what others want me to do (within legal bounds of course).

It's the same thing - your immunity to that power is your status.

No, it's not the same thing. Your influence on others is proportional to money and unbounded. Your immunity to others approaches 100% and stops. There's very little to brag or be guilty about, and we can share a goal of getting everyone close to that 100%.

I disagree. Using a probably hyperbolic metaphor: I don't want to be a slave but neither do I wish to be anybody else's master.

That is (or was) the definition of the middle or burgher class, though. The middle class is independent enough to be a check on the power of the upper class since they can't be bought, but not so wealthy or powerful that they control others. I think the analogy fits well.

It can often work the opposite of that. My brother is stuck in an industry he hates and unable to leave because his lifestyle is such that he couldn't take the income hit starting from near-scratch in another industry. He can't even really afford the income hit moving from a huge corporation to a fun little startup type gig.

And yeah, some of that is lifestyle, but lowering your standard of living is a lot harder when you've got a wife and 3 kids.

But I mean, all that stuff is a measure of his influence (to have people give him big houses or whatever), which his employer was willing to give in exchange for your brother doing some work he wouldn't otherwise do, and so on.

Not surprising. Doesn't mean it is laudable, though. And what I am most uncomfortable with, is the influence it has on potential education.