I’m not sure that “everyone buying stuff” is such a good thing,economy or no. Isn’t that buying right into every advertiser’s premise that you really need “stuff” (i.e. THEIR stuff) to be happy, etc.? Personally, I think that consumerism is a large part of what’s put our natural resources in such a sorry state and am trying now to really stop and think before I buy.
And Konrad- to make a corollary between wealth and intelligence can be tricky, from what I’ve seen…
It seems to me that a large assortment of countries tried to do just what the OP requests.
The former Soviet Union.
Well, maybe they were more forced to do their “giving,” but still, there wasn’t much an incentive for the average comrade to succeed.
Rich people pay their share (and moreso, some claim) in taxes. If they want to contribute any more to charity, that’s laudable. If they don’t, that’s perfectly fine.
And I seem to recall that alot of the pioneer spirit involved huge land grabs and hopes of quick riches. It wasn’t as altruistic as it may seem.
"This country’s pioneer spirit . . . was based upon sharing what people had . . . "
Um, aye. To be specific, sharing what other people had (land), and at gunpoint for the most part.
Let’s don’t be gettin’ ahead of ourselves. As a nation, the U.S. ‘shares’ the equivalent of the GNP of not an inconsiderable number of entire countries with the less fortunate within its own boundries every year. And this is only through redistribution of taxes. Voluntary charity and volunteerism in this nation adds a staggering amount of wealth to the ‘redistribution’.
This is not yet to add the amounts the U.S. ‘redistributes’ internationally in forms that vary from direct cash aid to disaster relief to the private efforts of a small army of ‘volunteers’.
It seems to this emigre that the greedy, bloated, consumerist, capitalistic imperialists of me adopted nation do more for each other and for the world at large in any given year than any ‘Socialist’ or ‘Communist’ nation of idealists has ever done in their entire histories.
If yer argument is that more can be done, spare the logic for the freshman social studies classes. The wealth of this nation and its citizens is not only fully earned, but is, odd individual examples aside, used more wisely and more altruistically than is precedented throughout human history.
If we’ve got enough left over fer a swimmin’ pool, we usually even invite the neighbors over fer a dip . . .
Dr. Watson
“It is not from top to bottom that societies die; it is from bottom to top.” – Henry George, ‘Progress and Poverty’, 1879
Rysdad, you beat me too it…however, the socialistic governments did create a have and have-nots.
There was a great distiction between those “wealthy” and those “poor” in those countries. Luckily, we still have some form of govt. (although look at my Libertarian posts you will get a better picture of where I stand) that allows us to do (barely) what we choose to do with our money.
As for the OP. You are an attorney and you choose to work for $15.00 per hour, shit dude, I have no college education, took my MCSE courses (not passing the tests) and I make $20-$25 an hour! That is my choice, as your $15 an hour is your choice. You could easily make $150 an hour if you are a good attorney, so don’t be moaning about the wealthy, you are making that choice on your own.
Again, before you lump all the wealthy people into some group you need to understand that there are a lot of wealthy people that gladly give money to help causes they believe in. One should never force (as I state in the Libertarian thread…sorry, but I have to bring this up) a person to give to an organization they don’t believe in. There is no room for forcing the wealthy into charity if they so desire not to or anyone of financial means.
Think about it, you may have a car, a bathroom with running water, a kitchen with an oven/stove, a refridge, a dishwasher etc… these are NOT necessities but rather conveniences. How about that quick lunch you get at Taco Bell or your local deli? What about that computer you are typing your postings on? Those are certainly not necessities for you to live your life, so how does your life fair up against what you are saying here? Should the wealthist go to living in straw shacks to help you prove a point? No matter what you tell me, I know, from personal experience, what it takes for a man or a woman to be wealthy and I can tell you it’s no tip toe through the tulips.
If you are so concerned about the poorest of the people on this Earth, I suggest you get out, sell your conveniences and join the Peace Corps. But to sit back and bitch about the wealthy who create jobs and help people gain in helping their families have some conveniences, is a waste of your time.
Did I mention you choose to make $15.00 an hour as an attorney? I thought I did, but thought I would bring that up again.
=====
Pardon my typos…I tried hard not to misspell things and such…but sheesh, this thinking has my panties in a twist hehe
tergivesater, what makes you think that these people don’t give money to charity? I have a couple of friends that worked their behinds off to make that kind of money and live in the same kind of luxury you describe, but they both give money hand over fist to charity. They own the company I used to work for, and they were the two most generous men I have ever met in my life. Just because they don’t talk about it doesn’t mean they don’t do it.
Princess of the Time and Space Continuum since 1969 (upgraded to Goddess 01/07/00)-
OK, we have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart. =^…^=
I want to echo many of the sentiments of other posters here. They earned the money, it’s theirs to do as they see fit.
I do want to add a few rambling thoughts of my own, though. My family grew up pretty poor, in a lower-middle-class neighborhood, in a rather shabby house. Only one car at a time, always kept the car until it’s wheels fell off. My dad worked HARD, as did my mom.
For a while, my dad had three jobs at one time. The reason? He was saving up money, he wanted to go see all his relatives in England - he’d never met them before. The neighbors bitched about that. Going to ENGLAND? Wondered where he got the nerve, the money, bitch bitch bitch. They were just jealous.
Then my dad saved up and got my mom a fabulous concert grand piano. The reason? She had a gorgeous singing voice, and her piano playing was fabulous too. She filled our little shabby house with wonderful music. The neighbors bitched about that too. One neighbor (far better off than us) even got a baby grand, just to “keep up” with us. No one ever learned how to play the piano at their house, though. It just sat there collecting dust.
We also had many other “nice” things growing up - a FABULOUSss (and huge) book and record collection. Talk about excess! Who needs thousands of books and records? We did. We read and listened to them all. But the neighbors wondered about that too.
My rambling point is - I don’t get worked up or jealous or anything over other people’s “excess”. If they have a baby grand that they play and enjoy, more power to them. If they never play it, however, and it is just there to “look good” - then I have to confess I feel a little pity and disrespect for that. Same with the other “nice” possessions. Do they really enjoy them, and use them? (It’s hard to get into someone else’s mind and decide this for them. But sometimes you can tell if people appreciate their possessions, or just got them to get them.) I think it is absolutely shitty to basically begrudge someone something that they enjoy. Even if it seems totally extravagant to you. It’s their money. If, however, it is obvious that a rich person is bored stiff with their fancy possessions, but yet buy them just to “show off”, then yeah - a little annoyance at them is not surprising.
::developing a bad case of post envy::
Yosemitebabe said what I wanted to say, but a lot better. But hey, I’ll gild the lily anyway…
I don’t mind people having money and nice things, or even ostentatious luxury. In the case of ostentation, I wonder about their priorities, but hey: whatever pops their corn. There’s nothing wrong with wealth; money is a tool and it can make life a lot easier and and more fun. It’s not a panacea, but it isn’t evil either. To quote the well known wisdom, “the love of money is the root of evil”.
If people have a bang-up good time with their money, and enjoy what it can buy, that’s fine. What does bother me is when money becomes the end in itself, and overrules obligations and responsibilities to others.
Money is just a thing; symbolic, powerful and generative–or destructive. But it is just a thing. It can blind people, rich and poor alike.
IMO, people are not judgable by their bank accounts, rich or poor. A related topic in MPSIMS discussed “wealth as relative”; seems to me that the way in which anyone regards money in relation to others is the most critical issue. This may be hair splitting, but poor=good and rich=bad just seems too simplistic.
Veb
“I am rich enough,” said Alexander Pope to Dean Swift, “and can afford to give way a hundred pounds a year. I would not crawl upon the earth withoug doing good. I will enjoy the pleasure of what I give by giving it alive and seeing another enjoy it. When I did, I should be ashamed to leve enough for a monument if a wanting friend was above the ground.”
At the end of the day, a person’s character is measured by the quality of his deeds, not the quanity of his possessions.
terggie
What’s that supposed to mean? Do people get judge differently at the end of the day than during the rest of the day? It sounds like a vague blanlet-statement to me.
I, for one, don’t judge people solely by the amount of money they have. I think negotiable securities and real estate are important too.
Yeah, and? You haven’t said word one about the deeds of the person in the OP. You just whined about his/her stuff. Your fixation on the possessions that you DON’T have says more about you than it does about them. Get over it.
“I’ll tell you a secret, baby - maybe you can’t do better - gotta settle for second best” - the Judybats
What is your point, tergie? Does your “friend” whom you recently visited pursue a vapid existence devoted to material acquisition or has this person actually walked many miles, as per techchick’s dad (and many other capitalists, myself included), on behalf of others? If this person has pursued goodies acquisition solely, well, that’s silly, but nevertheless his or her choice if the enabling gains are acquired legally. Should nobody reside inside if everybody cannot? Should we all enjoy the same standard of living, eternal fuckups and envelope punchers alike? Why punch the envelope?
I hope this post doesn’t sound completely dismissive of your thought, terg, but, unless you are in fact an unreconstructed communist, whatever you meant to communicate came through poorly.
I should add “an unreconstructed field communist,” because the big boys (nomenklaturat) never fell for that line, anyway.
Hope you’re not, tergie.
Elucidate.
Tergie: I don’t mean to jump on your case because overall I’m pretty much in sympathy with your position. But extrapolating personal worth by someones possessions is wrong, either having them or not.
Anyone can make value judgments on how much is “enough”. By the standards of much of the world, I (and I suspect you, too) are insanely blessed. And we are: peace, prosperity, security, well fed, health, etc.
But by equating “having more” with evil, very few would escape condemnation. And poor people want…exactly what the rich have. Unless you give all your possessions to the poor go about the land with a wooden bowl for begging, you are part of the system as well.
If I understand you correctly, your sticking point is “what is enough, already?” That’s a damned steep, icy slope indeed. I don’t fault the humanity of your impulse, but I question an underlying presumption: people can be judged by their possessions.
Rather than judging negatively by possessions, it seems to me much more sensible to judge positively by good works done and charity freely given. And those things just aren’t often very visible in the way that “things” are.
Veb
It has been my observation that the rich get that way by screwing people who are less well off. More to the point, they make their money off of other people’s hard work and sweat, or they inherit the money, which means they got it from other people’s hard work and sweat. Investments? The profitability of a company that makes investments pay off is the result of… You get my point. Sitting in an air conditioned office while people bust their asses on a factory floor where it’s over a hundred degrees and management won’t spring for a few more fans to cool the air in the building, then drive the Lincoln Continental home to the big house in Blair Hills…
By the way, the poor give a higher percentage of their income to charity than do the wealthy.
I never could get the hang of Thursdays. - Arthur Dent
Thank God for Greeks bearing gifts and crap dealers!
Citation?
I’m not equating “having more” with evil. I’m merely stating that rich people, people who have been successful and/or lucky ought to aspire for more than aquisitions of material possessions. You don’t have the possessions the guy has in my OP without being in love with material objects. Am I saying that he is evil? No, I’m saying that he and people like him ought to aspire to more lofty goals, like using some of that excess $$$ that they have to help those who have so little. WHY IS THAT SO OFFENSIVE TO SO MANY?
Well, tergie, has he used any of his resources in defense of the downtrodden?
I think that it is nice when people who are very well-off are mindful of the less fortunate around them, and try to help them. Sometimes these peope are very low key about the help they give. It is an old Biblical principle - “Don’t let your right hand know what your left hand is doing” (which I always assumed meant to keep your charitable contributions secret - don’t brag about how generous you are.) So - who knows how much these people contribute? Who really knows? Unless these aforementioned people make a big point of saying that they don’t help out the less fortunate, you don’t really know.
I also want to add on to my thoughts in my previous post - where is the line drawn? How rich is too rich, and how excessive is too excessive? Some people think that two cars (or two bathrooms in a house) is excessive. (I grew up being amazed and impressed when I found out someone had gasp! two cars!) Just because I think it is excessive, does that make it so?
My dad, with his huge record collection, had some pretty excessive collecting habits. He loved this one composer (Jean Sibelius) so much that he HAD to have every single thing recorded by him. If it meant buying a $50 or $100 multi-record collection of Sibelius’ works to get the one 2 minute obscure piece that had never been recorded before, my dad would fork over the $50 or $100. All that money so he could have a recording of a 2 minute piece of music. If that is not excessive, what is? Certainly that money could have been more wisely spent. (And believe me, many people were appalled my my dad’s music collection.)
I understand that some people’s excessive habits seem over the top, but I don’t like the precedent being set - that a third party gets to decide how much is too much. Maybe these rich people’s other rich friends think that they are “conservative” in their spending habits. Who gets to decide?
Krispy Original – voted SDMB’s 19th most popular poster (1999)