Money buys time and choice, which is what a good life is made of

The argument

A second argument for this position treats money as a claim on time rather than on goods. Proponents point out that almost everything people say they want more of is measured in hours: time with their children, time to sleep, time to make something, time not spent commuting or queuing or doing work they do not care about. Money converts directly into those hours. It pays for the journey that takes one hour instead of three, for help with the chores that consume an evening, for the shorter working week, and for the ability to decline the extra shift. On this view money's real purchase is control over one's own days. Proponents argue that the same holds for choice, which they take to be the other condition of a good life. Someone with savings can turn down work they find degrading, leave a place that makes them miserable, retrain, take the risk of trying something they might fail at, or support a person who needs them. Someone without savings takes what is offered. The difference between those two positions is not a difference in possessions but in the range of lives available, and proponents argue that it is among the largest differences there is in how a life feels from the inside. Defenders of the position accept that money spent on status or accumulation does little, and they treat this as the main lesson rather than an objection: the mistake lies in what people buy, not in the buying. Money spent on time, autonomy and relief from drudgery, they argue, reliably makes lives better. On this account money can buy happiness, provided it is spent on the hours and the options that a good life actually requires.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics question whether the conversion works as neatly as this. Earning enough to buy time generally requires giving up time, often at the stage of life when it is most valuable, and many people who could afford to work less do not, which suggests the money does not in fact get spent this way. They also argue that the final move weakens the claim considerably: a position that holds only when money is spent correctly is really the view that certain goods make people happier, with money as the means, and the original question was whether money itself does. Others add that autonomy is not the same as happiness, since people with wide options can be as unhappy as anyone else.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Critics object that time is one good among several, and that having it does not make a person happy by itself. [Rejecting P2] They argue the conversion runs the other way first, since earning enough to buy time usually costs the time it would buy. [Rejecting P3] They note that people who could afford to work less often do not, which suggests the options are not used as described. [Rejecting C] They conclude that the qualification about correct spending turns the claim into one about particular goods rather than about money.