Is Being Materialistic As Prevalent as People Say?

One thing I hear quite often is “It’s awful, people are so materialistic. They think that buying things can make them happy, but it can’t.”

Well, that statement contains more than one idea. The first is “Money can’t buy happiness.” True, money can’t buy happiness, but spent wisely, it can contribute mightily to a happy life.

The other idea is that people are too materialistic – meaning, I think, that people place too much value on owning things and showing them off to others in order to make an impression.

I’ve been mulling over that proposition. One of the subjects that has fascinated me for a very long time is the relationship of people to objects. I went through a long obsession with potlatch. I wrote a book, Profane Waste, examining why people would destroy their own possessions. I’ve read a lot of books about subjects like conspicuous consumption and self-identity through brands. I’m interested in anything to do with the symbolic meaning of particular objects (the Greek herm, for example), which is one reason I love Jung’s work.

So I’ve always been interested in this topic. But it seems to me that a lot of behavior that people consider “materialistic” is actually motivated not by a wish to boost self-esteem through stuff or to show off possessions to other people – in a “Keep up with the Joneses” kind of way – but by other reasons.

For example, take the guy who always buys the latest tech gadget – not from a desire to show that he can afford the most expensive new device, but to feed his fascination with technology, and perhaps also to maintain his reputation as a maven, the person to whom everyone can go for advice.

Take the couple who constantly renovate their house by adding a deck, adding a garden, putting in a new kitchen – not to show off to the neighbors, but as a way to get an atmosphere of growth in their lives. They see their house getting nicer, and that gives them satisfaction.

Take the woman who buys beautiful furniture. My mother, who has a tremendous appreciation for objects and a huge amount of expertise on what gives objects quality, would appreciate and acquire beautiful furniture even if she were the last person on earth.

Clothes are puzzle. Some people appreciate beautiful clothes for their own sake; it’s not all about making a display for other people, though that’s part of it, too. Virginia Woolf wrote in her diary: “I must remember to write about my clothes next time I have an impulse to write. My love of clothes interests me profoundly; only it is not love; and what it is I must discover.” Is this materialistic?

For better or worse, buying things is a way to engage with them and with the world. If you’re interested in a certain kind of object, you often express that interest by researching, shopping, and buying it. People who can’t afford art go to museums, but when people who like art can afford it, they usually want to buy art, too. People who love to cook want to buy elaborate tools and ingredients. People who love music want to buy music.

For some reason, we like to own the things we love, even when it’s not necessary. I’m only interested in reading The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin every so often, and the neighborhood library has three copies on its shelves -- yet I want my own copy. Is that “materialistic?” (It will be interesting to see if the internet will change this impulse, at least for books, movies, and music.)

It’s also true that when we have these things, we want to show them to other people. Is that always conspicuous consumption?

And objects can be necessary apparatus for other things we want to build into our lives, like exploration, acquisition of knowledge, and sense of security.

The word “materialistic” can be defined in various ways, of course, and some behavior is truly “materialistic” in the negative sense, and not very admirable. But I think it’s a term that is thrown around a lot, to cover behavior that isn’t as deplorable as often assumed.

But I’m still thinking through this and not sure of my conclusions so far. The relationship between people and objects—an inexhaustibly fascinating topic. What angles am I overlooking?

*
I love Lisa Belkin's New York Times blog Motherlode, and I particularly appreciated this guest post by Laura Vanderkam, Are You Being Too Efficient? It struck a chord; my resolutions include Take time for projects and Force myself to wander.

* Check out the Happiness Project Toolbox! If you want to get started with your own happiness project, you'll find eight free tools that will help you. And it's a lot of fun.

Comments

[Alex Lickerman @ Happiness in this World]

Wonderful questions. My own thinking is that in the quest to become more spiritual people adopt the misguided view that "spiritual" means, by definition, an absence of attachment to things physical. I lump all things external to ourselves (objects, people, jobs, etc) into one camp--"attachments"--and believe a happy life involves being an expert at enjoying them. By "expert" I mean specifically being able to give them up without our happiness being destroyed (admittedly, a good trick). I wrote a post about this on my own blog interested readers might want to check out at the link below. Thanks as always for a thought-provoking post.

http://www.happinessinthisworld.com/2009/06/14/the-double-edged-sword-of-attachment/

[indiana jayne]

For me, "materialism" is the UNTHINKING accumulation of goods. The intent of the purchase or acquisition matters. Too many people (myself included) have closets, attics and storage spaces junked up with "stuff" that will never get used and, as such, will not add to the enjoyment of our lives. To the contrary, I find such reckless consumption to actually be a burden. How much could I have done with the energy/effort that went in to accumulating things that I don't even like/want/need? Much of it because (in my case anyway) I didn't just think a little before I consumed.

I'm in the middle of a MAJOR purge(odd how serendipitous life is - I've been confronting and actively thinking about accumulating "stuff" and why I do it for weeks and along comes a post directly referencing exactly this notion), the result of which is a new commandment for myself based precisely on this idea of materialistic intent:

Try not succumb to instantaneous satisfaction (buying/accumulating) if it will not facilitate future happiness.

[Positively Present]

I really relate to this post, Gretchen. I tend to be a pretty "materialistic" person. I have lots and lots of clothes. I have tons and tons of books. While I don't believe buying things will bring me happiness, I do feel happy when I have things. However, I do think there's a line between having things (and liking having them) and being materialistic. What we need to do is ask ourselves WHY we're buying something. Certainly I don't need 20 pairs of jeans (which, yes, I probably have), but what about a great book like, say, The Happiness Project? ;) I think there's a difference in what we need, what we want, and what we think we want. Having things for a purpose is very different than having something just to have something.

[Blisschick]

I think this comes down to something a friend said to me once about money:

It's not money that is the problem, it's what people are willing to DO for money.

Replace "money" with "clothes," etc., and I think the idea holds perfectly.

It is perfectly okay to have a love for beautiful things (god! WHAT we BE without beauty!), but if you are working a job you hate, selling your very soul, then the beauty owns you. This then is where a sort of spiritual death enters the picture.

[Katie @ cakes, tea and dreams]

This is totally fascinating. I guess it comes back to mindfulness again - being aware of what we buy, why we buy it and the impact it has on our lives, the people we love and the earth. (Not that I'm very good about that, most of the time. But it helps to have it as a goal.)

I do agree that we want to own the things we love - perhaps because we hope owning them will help us enjoy them more, or make them more a part of who we are.

[LPC]

I have 5 pairs of jeans. But I would have 5 pieces of Christo and Jean-Claude's work instead if I could afford it. The desire to possess stuff is one thing. The desire to decorate and display one's self is another. The desire to be near beauty is yet another. Buddhism aside, which tends to conflate, as religions often do.

[Victor Milán]

Why do we obsess over whether or not we're "materialistic," anyway? At the risk of quoting Madonna, we live in a material world.

For example: alleviating hunger - what could be more "material" than that?

Then again: what's wrong with wishing to better our own material circumstances?

As with anything, material concerns can be overdone to the point of destructive madness. Anything can. How hard is it to call to mind people victimized by others who were obsessed with their own spiritual values, is it?

Why not try thinking in terms, not of "moderation" - feh! - or even essentially static "balance," but equilibrium? Which after all is dynamic, reflecting the ever-changing nature of the world in which we live?

After all, don't all things which find a place in this world, have a place in this world?

[Gretchen Rubin]

So many excellent points. This issue is even more complicated than I thought.

[BYU Women's Services and Resources]

I love what you said about how we have this innate desire to own the things we love and to share them with others as something that is a part of us.

Maybe there is a portion of us that wants to be able to represent who we are with physical objects that we feel so strongly for.
Interesting ideas.

[moosy]

You might want to read up on articles or books of Keith Hayward. He is a researcher on "the life as it is today".

He says that we live in a consumption culture (ok, nothing new there), a typical sign of the mix of the modern and postmodern age. We (and youngsters even more) are called "subjects in transition": we are between the modern and postmodern age which confuses us. We are driven to buy things, because we are told this will construct our identity. We have lost most other ways to form our identity (where it used to be "you work in the mines, which makes you a miner" or "you go to church, so you are a church-go-er"), so we need something else. And our consumption culture mirrors that we can be a great sportswoman if we just buy those new shoes, or a great mom if we buy that new toy, etc.
But once we have bought the new thing, we feel distraught: "hey, this didn't help", yet we once again get distracted by new things of the consumption culture ("but maybe that new car will help").

It's a little too complicated to explain entirely, so I suggest Keith Hayward: City Limits: Crime, Consumer Culture and the Urban Experience.
It's a real tough cookie to crumble, but it's worth it if you would like to understand materialism and consumer culture on a new level.

I hope this helps.

[Maria Helm]

Gretchen - I have the same problem with books. I do a lot of reading online, downloading from Gutenberg.org, etc. BUT - if a book has really made an impact on my life, or I have certain memories associated with it, then I MUST have a hardcopy. There are certain books on my shelf that I could NEVER part with, even though it's been years since I read them, and there is always a copy or two at the library.

I am trying to determine why I do not feel the same way about music. There are certainly songs/albums that have imprinted on me just as deeply as those books. But somehow it feels like that music will just always be "out there" when I need it. I don't have to keep a CD - or even the mp3, if I am not frequently listening to it.

[Annabel]

I always wanted to be a musician but for various reasons was unable to pursue it on a serious level for many years. During that time I became obsessed with collecting music instructional books even though I wasn't really using them much.

In the last couple of years I've been able to pursue my music studies more seriously again and I've found that I've become much less attached to my collection and am selling off a lot of books.

It's as if my attachment to those books was a way of keeping my dream alive all those years.

[Drew @ Cook Like Your Grandmother]

You should make a distinction between materialism, and hoarding behavior. They're both negative, but in significantly different ways.

Materialism is the desire for things. It represents a longing, and a belief that the things will fill a void.

Hoarding is driven by fear and anxiety. It represents an attempt to control a world perceived as uncontrolled and -- more importantly -- unsafe.

[Louisa]

"For some reason, we like to own the things we love, even when it’s not necessary."

This is a generalization that isn't true, at least not in my case. For years, I loved cappuccino. "Don't you want an espresso maker?" friends and my husband would ask. "Then you can make cappuccino whenever you want."

No, I didn't. As with many other things, I often prefer access to ownership. Objects often annoy me. The more of them I have, the more maintenance, organization, and cleaning required, and the easier they are to lose.

I agree with you that the word "materialistic" needs to be unbundled. I once defined it as the quality of needing objects to lend a sense of safety and security. But that's probably all of us!

[jaz]

I think that many people unconsciously define materialism as the acquisition of goods other than those which the speaker values. Case in point: my parents each consider the other to be unduly materialistic. My father likes to own the newest electronic gadgets and home improvement devices. My mom enjoys purchasing books and home decor objects. Each thinks that the others purchases are junk and resent the "waste" of many and space.

While I do think that there is a real problem with materialism, I also think that some of it is just that people have trouble understanding how others can ascribe value to objects which they themselves do not care about.

[Chris]

Americans account for 5% of the world's population, but use more than 25% of its resources.

It's easy to explain-away an individual person's choices as servicing a noble goal; but in the aggregate, American patterns of consumption are inexcusable and unsustainable.

Everybody else in the world, even in the wealthy countries, lives with less. So it's certainly possible to have a happy, good and fulfilling life that also involves less (and/or smaller) stuff.

The fact that we as Americans live so far out of whack suggests that the decisions we're making with regard to our stuff are all wrong.

[Marie]

It's about books for me . . . I have very limited living space, but I choose to fill the space I have with well-loved books. Used book sales are full of bliss for me. I love to sort my books by topic, read them in a wild order so the topics are all mixed up in my head . . . I love to run my fingers over the bindings and read all the titles . . . and when I have to recycle books back into circulation because all my bookcases are full, it is like parting with my best friends . . .

- Marie (Coming Out of the Trees)

[Blisschick]

Had to come back.

There are two, distinct issues here.

First, being materialistic is simply the overidentification with material wealth -- TO THE EXCLUSION of spiritual, creative, and intellectual concerns.

Second, this is different than over-consuming, which, of course, is the case with Americans.

We allow starving children. We think health care is a privilege, and we drive hummers because it's our "right." oye.

I think, though, again, when people say "she is too materialistic," they are really referring to the persons lack of depth.

[Beverly]

I'm constantly asking myself if I'm being materialistic or if I just really enjoy clothes and fashion. I still have not come up with a clear answer. When I'm dressed well, I feel better and have confidence to face the world. When I'm in schlumpy-dumpy clothes I would rather not face or talk to anyone. Does that mean that my confidence is built by my attire? Or is it because I so appreciate the loveliness of the dress/shirt/pants/whatever, that it makes me happy and better able to face the world? Still not sure.

I do constantly question myself as to whether a new outfit is necessary? Just because I see something cute, in my size and at a reasonable price, does it mean I really need it, especially when I have plenty of other nice clothes in my closet already? What I tell myself in those moments is "There will always be a cute dress (or whatever the new item is that I'm coveting)." And it's true. I could browse online or go shopping daily and would always find something that's just "too cute" and a "must" for my wardrobe.

One New Year's Eve a couple of years ago, (sorry, long comment getting longer) I convinced myself I needed the "perfect" outfit for a friend's party. In my mind "perfect" meant a white suit with a sparkly camisole and heels to match. I went from store to store that New Year's Eve day to find the best white suit for the right price. Well, none seemed to fit my budget and so I began to flirt with the idea of charging it, but the more and more I thought about it, it didn't feel right to do that either. Finally, I just went home, sobbing along the drive, upset that I couldn't afford what I wanted.

Then I got deep. I asked why it was so important that I must have this white suit, so much so that I was willing to charge it. I asked myself a series of questions until I reached a clear reason for my obsession.

Don't you have perfectly acceptable clothes in your closet? Yes.

Then what's the problem? Everyone has seen me in everything else already.

Oh, so it's about your friends seeing you in repeat outfits? Yes.

And what would be wrong with that? Are your friends going to like you any less if they see you wearing something that they've seen you in before? I don't know.

And then came the revelation: Well, if they are true friends they will just be glad you came to the party and not care what you're wearing.

So it was settled. No white suit, but a splendid New Year's Eve outfit was assembled and looked just as "perfect" but even better 'cause I already owned it.

So is all that materialism or insecurity, or maybe (and probably) both? But in some cases, can it be argued it's just a love of fashion?

By the way, I would still love to own an all white suit.

[Julia]

I think in Western Society, what we buy, and where we buy is integral to our identity. It's hard to be a Mac person who doesn't own a Mac, a hipster without a record collection, or an Oscar Wilde lover without any Oscar Wilde books.

When I joined my mother at the Super Walmart the other day I felt horrible, probably not because of all Walmart's ills, as I shop at many non-Unionized discount stores, but because people who I identify with don't shop at Walmart.

But I agree with what others are saying, that its not so much who we are, which we are comfortable with that we feel the need to buy our identity, so much as who we want to be. I buy all the future me's, so I can readily evolve on a rainy day.

[Jodi at Joy Discovered]

Hi Gretchen, Thought provoking post! I think materialism is when one is defined by his/her possessions. Other than that, if people have an appreciation for books or art or beautiful furniture, and like to collect them, that's their business. All that aside, I do think that the accumulation of stuff--to the point of excess--is gross negligence!! Simplicity is the way to go...for me, anyway!

[David Turnbull]

I always considered materialism the idea of buying goods without thought or purpose. I own an iPhone, a Macbook Pro, a Rode Podcaster microphone etc...but they were all careful decisions that serve specific purposes.

[delzoup]

There are two aspects to materialism. One is when the quest for goods becomes a burden rather than a blessing; for instance, when someone lives beyond their means.

The other aspect is wastefulness. People will buy things and dispose of them before their usefulness has ended. This is a frustrating habit of my husband... for instance, he will buy a new book and only read it once. Then, he'll keep it lying around or throw it away. He can't stand 2nd hand books (including library books). He's not the time to read a book a second time, or recycle the book by giving it to charity, etc. Drives me mad.

[Linda]

Way to go Gretchen. You are treading on terrain that most of us fear.

I love people's comments about thinking through purchases, noticing consequences for others, evaluating trade-offs, and the larger global context.

What no one is saying is that materialism looks different based on your class background. In my opinion, middle-class are the most vulnerable to confusion/competition/conformity in this area because of societal norms around their worth being determined by their achievement.

Fother groups relationships or connections tend to be more central and materialism is less seductive...except as a way to win relationships.

Thanks for helping us all think better in this area.

[Buffy]

Research has shown that spending money on experiences (e.g. a holiday or going out for dinner) makes people happier for longer than spending money on things (such as clothes).

[Tracy]

While your exploration of materialism seemed focused on external vs. intrinsic motivation, I think of materialism at its root. Could I walk away from my belongings today without a great deal of mental anguish? If I were told I had to leave my home permanently today, what would I HAVE to take with me to be happy? Some could live in the woods with simple items needed for survival and be quite happy. Try going on vacation for a week with just well chosen items in a backpack. I found this exercise quite liberating!

[Laura]

Really great post, Gretchen! I enjoyed reading about the way you are working through this perplexing question.

These days I mostly buy things for my house. I don't consider my purchases "materialistic" even if they aren't necessary - like decorative objects. I'm trying to create an interesting and cozy atmosphere for my home and it makes me happy to look up and see a painting on the wall or a beloved object on the bookshelf. So perhaps my purchases do serve a purpose - to make me feel "at home" and relaxed. Bare walls and spartan surroundings feel cold and uninviting to me.

[Jeff Hershberger]

Gretchen, you recently mentioned offhandedly that people play with the objects they love. That comment resonated with me and I think it's related to this. For example, maybe people surround themselves with the objects they love.

There are only two alternatives to "buy": there is "make" and there is "not have". Both are admirable in some way, but that doesn't mean buying is a bad thing. If the things you buy make you think, or uplift you, or challenge you, or otherwise improve your life, then buy them!

[EscapeVelocity]

One issue is, how much do people who can't afford or don't choose to spend money on certain things feel under pressure from others? I've had people come right out and tell me I should buy a new car, or that they don't see how I can live without a dishwasher. And don't get me started on iPhones.

[Charley Forness]

I am starting to let go of those material things that would otherwise superficially define me. Lord knows it's not an easy task but I am nearly always amazed at the freedom I feel thereafter. I recently went through the process of digitizing my music and doing a trial at packing away my CD's. I figure that if I can go six months without opening the box I will donate them. I initially tried to digitize whole albums, but then I realized for many of them, I only liked one or two toons, so I went thru a purge on the digitals too.

Now I've started the same with my books thanks to a recent gift of an IPOD Touch that has the Kindle app on it. I just checked and actually found a free Kindle download of Ben Franklin's autobiography. I'm fine with having my books digital but don't you dare ever ask me to part with my leather bound edition of Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist.

Namaste

[Hung-Su]

I like to think of decision making as a reaction of some kind. If someone bought something, what were they doing before then?

I think we would find that many people buy things when they're bored and have some money - buying things is a reflex to boredom, not an act of obsessive materialism. It's rather sad, that these people don't know there are other ways to react to being bored with money than simply spending it.

[Maxbery]

You're right Gretchen Rubin. It's quite blatant that "materialism" isn't a source of happiness. Anywhere, accumulation of wealth isn't bad though, but if the only intention you have is to accumulating wealth here and there just to enjoying yourself, I mean, to eat or drink all brand juice you see, guys I must say you’re trading on the grave path.

I've to let you know this: There was a time I felt money is overall in terms of happiness. In those days I ate and drank anyhow thinking such is happiness; but latter I understand it isn’t. I fell sick periodically till I came to realize that healthiness is the basic source of happiness. This past episode of mine on materialism has claimed and rendered so many homes in awful crises that led to divorce and premature dead-- husband and wife are on “rat race” of material pursuit and competing with each other.

It’s common that men and women care-less on their health status nowadays-- eat, drink, ride latest cars, wear costly clothes, among others. The worst is that some people having acquired huge wealth, they resort to eating and developing large tummy--- finally developed dreadful sickness in the body-- which might eventually lead to dead. If you need genuine happiness, which I know “a healthy man is a happy man”. From now onward, think on how to be healthier both you and your family. Since I realized that accumulation of wealth just for happiness sake isn’t a source of happiness rather a dangerous habit, I had been a happier man till date. Healthy man is a happy man! Get more information on how to be healthier at http://hometestingblog.testcountry.com/

Thank you Gretchen for this wonderful post, I’ll add you on my favorite—please add mine too. Thanks

[tracy]

Great post. I thought i'd add this to the mix. I am an avid rock collector - and not in the sense that I collect anything valuable - I just pick up rocks that I like, especially on trips to new places. So, there is no money involved in this, but yet I am acquiring and keeping things. I have often wondered why I feel so compelled to do this, and what it says about me. The best I have come up with is that it is a way of understanding and relating to the world that works for me.

[Meme]

Interesting. I have retired and all our spending money has disappeared down the stock market and real estate busts. I really want to live simply but I still want things (plants for my butterflies, clothes as I have lost weight etc.) We can live on our income, but few trips to restaurants or gifts for friends. Living simply is no longer a choice but a reality. Exploring all the above issues seems helpful.

[bobroth]

To be honest, I think that certain things we do ARE materialistic, even if for "growth" or other purposes as you've described. Why? Because the actions are short-sighted in most cases... meaning that a person could have felt ten times as good about putting an screened-in porch on a physically challenged person's house rather than their own, right? We don't think in terms of world good, we think in terms of personal good... and that is materialistic.

[Daisy]

I understand some of the points that are being represented in hear but I still feel that people worry about materialistic things. From my perpective from the way I view it many know that they can't afford. As mentioned in hear they live above their means trying to give the impression that they can do the same thing that everybody else is doing. Yet, the honest truth is that they can't and they try to stay up with the lastest trends because they know that is what everbody else is wearing. There are clothes and etc. that middle class people can buy within their budget but they refuse to because for some reason its not the expensive ones that someone else is wearing. It's ridiculous low clearance clothes looks and lasts as long as the expensive ones. So who cares if it dont have someones names on it.

[Tracy W]

It strikes me that in every culture in every period of history I know about, people have put effort into making beautiful things.

And I'm definitely doubtful about conspicious consumption, given the enthusiasm that many hikers have for introducing others to the great outdoors, even though obviously no individual hiker owns a national park.

[Madame X]

Great post. I think money and "things" definitely make us happy for reasons far beyond showing off/keeping up. If we expect too much of them, or use them as substitutes for other forms of happiness, that is the problem. But there are so many variables... certainly a complex question, and one that varies for every individual situation.

[Meg from FruWiki]

"But it seems to me that a lot of behavior that people consider “materialistic” is actually motivated not by a wish to boost self-esteem through stuff or to show off possessions to other people – in a “Keep up with the Joneses” kind of way – but by other reasons."

Actually, I find the other reasons you give to be just as materialistic. If you buy gadgets because you're interested in new technology, that's still materialistic because your interest is in products (as opposed to people, though they aren't exclusive).

"For better or worse, buying things is a way to engage with them and with the world. If you’re interested in a certain kind of object, you often express that interest by researching, shopping, and buying it."

Again, buying stuff because you're interested in objects is materialistic. So, perhaps to a certain degree we are -- or 99.9% of us at least -- are materialistic. Or, perhaps it is better to say that we do things that are materialistic. It's normal. It's part of human nature.

However, I do think that there are degrees and I understand your desire for the word not to be overused -- which is something I abhor (like people calling everything "cults" or "slavery" -- even rather positive or at least neutral things). There's a big difference between buying and having a reasonable amount of stuff that you like while having healthy relationships with people and becoming shopaholic, hoarding, stuff addicts that are anti-social because you'd rather spend time with things than people. The latter might truly deserve the title "materialistic", whereas I might just jokingly chide the former for things they do that are materialistic while admitting that I myself -- despite decluttering quite a bit and shopping much less these days -- am still materialistic, too. I like nice stuff and I know it.

But just because it's a matter of degrees doesn't mean that person A isn't materialistic at all compared to person B. They're just less materialistic, just as I am less materialistic than I used to be. And I do think that as a society we should try to become less materialistic. We need to focus more of our energy on connecting with people instead of stuff, making friendships instead of more stuff for the landfills.

[kazari]

Sorry for the late post, but I had to add my ten cents.
I don't think we are materialistic ENOUGH. If we really valued the things we owned, the things we bought - we wouldn't own 20 pairs of jeans. We would own one pair of jeans we loved. If we really valued the car we drove, we wouldn't replace it each year, because that's what we do.
If being materialistic means loving and obsessing over the objects in our lives, why do we associate it with a throw-away society, and always reaching for the next thing? I think that must be something else entirely...

[William Wilson]

Hi, first time visitor.
Six things come to mind when buying something-is what I'm buying worth the effort of acquiring the money, can I do without it, is storage an issue, do I have anything similar that'll fulfill almost the same function, which corporation is involved in it's manufacture and where is it made.
If I had to rate them by importance? Probably the first consideration is the most important to me but they all are