>You’d think if people had more than they need, they would be generous about it, and would see, reflecting on themselves, that others might want to have more as well.
This doesn't really make sense to me. People who value relationships or are compassionate generally, in my anecdotal experience, value money less. So of course they'll have less. Th people who rich are the ones who value spending their time getting money over helping others (empathy, essentially). At least, that's how I feel about money, and I assume other people who are rich/desire to be rich feel the same way. More precisely, it's not that people who get rich lose their ability to empathize -- people who never developed the ability to empathize have an easier time getting rich.
Strange. When I have money, I feel generous about it, and want to use that money to help others. I thought most people felt that way. It's one of the reasons that a progressive tax system makes good sense to me.
There are many ways that people get to be rich. Some are born into it, and stay rich because of systemic biases. Others "value spending their time getting money over helping others" and get rich that way. Still others get there by luck - winning the lottery - or by semi-luck - getting paid in pre-IPO shares of a wildly start-up.
Based on the various stories I've heard, those who win by luck tend to be the most generous with their money.
This essay is about those in the first category; those who are rich because of systemic biases, where society "is so deeply hierarchized along both class and caste lines" and "wealth is so completely tied in with political power, and often to crime without punishment." It's not really the one you're possibly thinking of, where someone starts average and ends up rich.
My income does tend to fluctuate. Some years I make really good money as a consultant. Other times I don't. I don't have much control over it. That would fit with the semi-luck category, since I don't get the feel that my income level is a good reflection of how much effort I put into things; income isn't a good measure of my self.
The difference is that you acknowledge that you 'have' money. Also, you possibly acknowledge that you had certain opportunities that other people could ill afford and therefore have this money.
Unfortunately, the difference in opportunity in India is considered (by both rich and poor) to be something that God has handed down and therefore it's fair. By the rich because it's convenient to think that way and by the poor because they feel like they have no escape apart from reincarnation.
I was traveling in Brazil last year and found that the poor in Brazil (also due to drug issues..) actively blame the rich for their poverty and are also to a great extent violent against wealthier people. (at least in the cities that I was in..)
However, the difference in India is that poor people more often than not attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek retribution. I honestly believe this is what keeps the poor in India from revolting en masse. If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system, over here there would be a civil war.
> attribute their poverty to God and therefore do not blame the rich or seek retribution....If the Indian belief system was like the Brazilian system, over here there would be a civil war.
that's interesting. I've always considered religion to be a form of control over people by a certain elite group. This gives me more anecdotal confirmation.
I wonder if indian society could be better served if there was a civil war, where the poor raise up, and appropriate the land from the wealthy. I keep reading articles like http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/generat... and it sounds like that would be a painful fix, but may be the end justify the means...
The class system might also interfere with other motives that sometimes lead wealthier people to act generously even when they aren't particularly altruistic or compassionate. In societies where people see each other as roughly part of the same community, one of the advantages of being rich is that you can be munificent with your money, which gains you social status and prestige. You can see that in smaller American towns, for example, where, at least traditionally, the preferred way of demonstrating wealth was to do things like sponsor a library, host a 4th of July party everyone's invited to, etc., not more "separate" displays of wealth like buying a Ferrari. Some people would no doubt do so out of genuine concern for libraries, the 4th of July, and their neighbors, but there's also a bit of social reinforcement in that serving in that kind of "civic benefactor" role is a high-status position: you're not just giving your money away purely altruistically, but in a way buying a certain social role.
Indeed, and selling "personal advertising space" on the sides of libraries, and "putting a price on social status" are perhaps the only way to achieve some measure of equality.
(Almost) everyone craves social status. Let people earn it in healthy ways, by their contributions, not their accumulations; don't envy their Jaguars, be dismissive of them. And don't resent people who contribute because "yeah, they should have, they are rich". Congratulate them for doing good and encourage competition to be the largest philanthropist.
I think you've misread trhtrsh. 'Let people earn it in healthy ways, by their contributions, not their accumulations.'
This view is that rich people should only be respected for their contributions "back to the society which has enriched them." Not for their ability to acquire and hold $100+ million.
I believe also that the point about 'selling "personal advertising space" on the sides of libraries' is meant to include the Carnegie libraries. Some 2,509 were built between 1883 and 1929. It coincided with a big increase in interest in town planning and personal enrichment.
I think the Carnegie libraries example highlights possible limitations to trhtrsh's optimistic views of philanthropy. The libraries were successful in part because of the Carnegie Formula. For example, towns had to "demonstrate the need for a public library" and "annually provide ten percent of the cost of the library's construction to support its operation."
This was chosen instead of, say, an endowed institution because "an endowed institution is liable to become the prey of a clique. The public ceases to take interest in it, or, rather, never acquires interest in it. The rule has been violated which requires the recipients to help themselves. Everything has been done for the community instead of its being only helped to help itself." (I'm cribbing directly from Wikipedia for these quotes.)
That observation from 150 years still rings true today. Some types of philanthropy aren't good for the society. Any sort of "social status" must bear that in mind. Alas, social status is not easy to define, and mistakes or problems caused by a case of bad philanthropy may easily be misattributed.
I agree it's tricky to get right. The art world is one example where some philanthropic spending is arguably for the public benefit, but other philanthropic spending has arguably fallen "the prey of a clique".
I wasn't thinking in my comment upthread as systemically, though, in terms of whether philanthropy or, say, taxation, is a better way to tackle inequality. I actually lean a bit towards the latter myself, and am skeptical of whether very wealthy people are actually good at directing large philanthropic projects on average.
I was thinking more small-scale at just a cultural level, like the anecdotes this article is describing. The article paints a picture of some wealthy people in a certain set of circumstances who are quite dismissive of poor people, even contemptuous towards them. But in other circumstances, it's seen as one of the rewards of wealth that you can act as a sort of magnanimous benefactor, gracious servant of the public. Whatever causes that cultural difference strikes me as interesting. One guess is that it relates to whether wealthy people feel some sense of community with poorer people in the same area, so they gain something socially from being a town's benefactor, because the poorer people they're helping out are in the same social circles. But I imagine that's only one aspect.
Your upstream thread reminded me of an essay I read a few months back. It concerned Downton Abbey, which is a show I've not seen so anything I say here is second- or third-hand.
In the British style of the 1800s, the system was set up so the lord of the manor (or whatever the title might have been) was the caretaker of the wealth and the people. For example, he would build housing for the people of the manor, provide money to the church, support the sick and elderly, and so on. In return, the people would work for him.
This makes the system dependent on one person. If that person should invest heavily in a sugar cane plantation in the Caribbean, which goes south, then that may mean economic hardship for the entire area.
It's hard for me to say that this model is either philanthropy or taxation. It's remnants of feudalism. That makes me think that the issue actually one of centralized vs. decentralized power, or of resilience vs. fragility. (After all, towns and cities also go bankrupt.)
Wealth is a force multiplier, which can be used for good and for bad. There are ways to attenuate its use for bad: equalize wealth (eg, through progressive taxes or increased philanthropy), strengthen laws (so those with less wealth seek remedy in case of bad treatment), inculcate (eg, through the Carnegie Formula) an ethos towards "good" philanthropy, and so on.
Progressive taxation to me is the easiest to accomplish. It does require a transparent, responsive government, but then again, so do the others.
This doesn't really make sense to me. People who value relationships or are compassionate generally, in my anecdotal experience, value money less. So of course they'll have less. Th people who rich are the ones who value spending their time getting money over helping others (empathy, essentially). At least, that's how I feel about money, and I assume other people who are rich/desire to be rich feel the same way. More precisely, it's not that people who get rich lose their ability to empathize -- people who never developed the ability to empathize have an easier time getting rich.