Our small extended family has utilized the small, scaled-down Xmas stuff giving for a decade now, which is somewhat tied to total $ outlay. In this guise, making the gift "worthy" for its recipient gained new meaning, and it's allowed us to expand the amounts we give to local food banks and aid organizations. I get more satisfaction from buying and delivering ten cases of canned goods to Food Share than driving to and shopping at any mall. But I still get the Blues for Christmas given to me by the state of the world and our country's responsibility for making it much worse.

I have to confess...it wasn't really much of a "sacrifice" to go smaller. The vast majority of things my family bought for me were things I didn't even want. Instead, they bought me things they wanted. My mother loves jewelry, so she would buy me things like $1,000 gold necklaces. I almost never wear jewelry. (Though I'm glad to have it now, in case I need to melt it down to buy food. ;-) She even asked me once if I wanted a certain bracelet. I said no, I would never wear it, and if she was spending that kind of money, she should buy me a computer. She bought me the bracelet anyway.

I suspect a lot of the things that are bought as gifts are not really wanted by the recipient. Look at all the corporate gifts that are exchanged at this time of year. Desk clocks, pen sets, etc., many quite expensive. Does anyone really want that stuff?

That said, I think you're 100% right about it being an expectations game. There was some interesting research done that found that rich people really are less happy. The reason, apparently, is that it takes a lot more to make them happy...but it doesn't take a lot more to make them unhappy.

So winning $100 would make a poor person ecstatic, a middle class person happy, and wouldn't mean a thing to Bill Gates. But he's likely to get just as annoyed as a poor person if someone cuts him off in traffic or he gets in a fight with his wife.

IOW...the higher you are, the more downside you have, and the less upside.