Last week I wrote an article about service and how it is an integral part of my experience as I’ve progressed through life. 

Throughout my time learning about service, one item has constantly been brought up because of its contentious relation to how we perceived magnanimity. This item is the concept of charity and how ineffective it is in comparison to service. 

Time and time again I read studies about how ineffective charity and giving money to those in need is. 

In most cases, the logic makes sense as well. If you don’t know how to spend the money to improve your situation, then how are you expected to better yourself once you’re provided with the funds? 

Without access to the proper tools or opportunities for success, anyone who is poor, vulnerable or marginalized has no chance of knowing what to do. Service is supposed to be a way to provide those tools or opportunities for success. 

Charity, on the other hand, while undoubtedly positive and likely genuine, falls short. Despite the intent, participating can often lead to adverse effects or an exacerbation of the problem it attempts to solve. 

This idea molds the lens that many people look at service and charity through, yet we rarely stop to contemplate whether that framework should be widened to fit our more privileged lives as well. 

As I approach my graduation with a job lined up, life seems suspiciously easy. Extraneous circumstances notwithstanding, a single individual living by him or herself doesn’t have too many expenses. 

I am confident that I’ll be able to live a comfortable life these next couple of years despite not making the six-figure dream that many high-level achievers may want coming out of college, but do I even need that six-figure dream? 

For some people, a nice car is everything. Maybe they yearn to pay their own property taxes or have a hefty savings account they’ll never take money out of. 

In my mind, I’ll be just fine with what I’ve got because adding more money has diminishing returns, which is a finding that is much more than anecdotal as research corroborates that result. 

Despite this, the obsession to flush ourselves and others with cash still drives many people, whether they be policymakers or recent college graduates. 

Undoubtedly, for some people, more funds can go a long way to change their lives, but it’s rarely the case that it’s as impactful as other forms of assistance or improvement. 

Plus, very rarely is the unique situation of the individual and what might make them truly happy addressed. After all, many of us could be happier with less, but we don’t want to accept that as an option. 

Every year at Creighton my living situation progressively got better and better. From the cramped dorms of Kiewit to the luscious hospital-rooms-turned-apartments of the Atlas Apartments, life has improved. 

But do we need to keep improving materially year-over-year?  

I know that I’d be fine with returning to the cramped dorm of Kiewit again or settling for less in some other way. As long as I’m still able to be me, then what’s the worry? 

It’s in this way that those who get lost yearning for that big salary or those who think that the best way to improve people’s lives is to give them more money confuse me. 

Also, although I recognize these comments are coming from someone who’s lived a very privileged life so far, memories of the people I’ve served who are living their lives with beaming smiles and remarkable expressions of humility have nonetheless stuck with me. 

After all, even people facing financial strife or physical peril can find the time to smile and appreciate what they’ve got because in the end it’s rarely about the money. It’s always about something greater.