So to summarize, the most ethical way to be a rich person is to be a really bad one. Underpay employees, don't give any money away, and create the biggest environmental footprint your wealth allows. That will inspire such horror that such a lifestyle is possible, resulting in systemic change which ultimately creates a better world for more people than if said rich person gives away 90% of their income to people who are suffering now.
The points I was trying to make was that individual action is not a substitute for systemic change and, yes, it may be that a good rich person is more effective at maintaining the systemic status quo
You give me so much to think about. I really appreciate your honesty, clarity, and thoughtfulness, David. I'm so glad to have found you here on Substack. I'm reading a novel, Walk the Dark, by Paul Cody, that you might find interesting. His character reminds me of Barbara Kingsolver's Demon Copperhead and the Demon Copperhead doppleganger whom my husband and I took in for a month last fall—these are people at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from where you are, but both Kingsolver and Cody humanize them in a way that I think shows how very insidious poverty is. I'd be curious to know your take if you read either or both books.
This is another courageous essay David, I admire you greatly for that alone. As far as wealth is concerned, my personal view is very simple; if it has been earned without corruption or violence, without theft or dishonesty or exploitation of others then it is deserved. No matter that it comes from generations of hard workers, if you are fortunate enough to be on the receiving end, enjoy. But, never forget where it came from and always always be humble, kind to those less fortunate and never take one cent of it for granted. I think you fall very well under all these categories and for that I thank you.
I appreciate this post, which I found succinct and thoughtful. At first, I was concerned that it would fall victim to the very phenomenon it sought to address, offloading the difficult personal analysis to the anecdotes in Uneasy Street to create some distance between the author at the problem. Ultimately I think you corrected this issue for the most part, although that distance is certainly still present (and perhaps that tension is inherent to the overall conclusion).
I still think that there’s a great deal of analysis missing, though. In December I wrote about money and corruption, going back to the origin of money and what changed upon its introduction to human society. Taking the human propensity to be selfish and individualistic — and to have wealth accumulation in and of itself as a goal in life — as a given is part of what I think is worth challenging. This piece only tackles structural issues insofar as it relates to tax policies and social safety nets, but totally assumes the dominance of money and growth above all else. But what is that predicated upon? Environmental degradation and the exploitation of vulnerable populations, for starters.
In the search for the moral justification of your (or any individual’s) wealth belongs the search for the moral justification of wealth, period, and what is implied by the generation of wealth as a be-all-end-all. You touch on the well-meaning yet patronizing attitudes of the wealthy toward the poor in everyday interactions, but that’s only one facet of the
erosion of community and solidarity under capitalism. I don’t consider that reality to be inevitable. Maybe this discussion would fit better in a different post — ultimately, I think you write concisely and coherently about a complex topic, and adding more layers might make it untenable. I just think that it could go much deeper by challenging some premises.
I think your more wide-sweeping critique of wealth is a critique of human nature––our selfishness and prizing ourselves above community more often than not. Right now, i can't see how that might happen, but maybe my views will change. You're right in that I assume a continuation of capitalism as the continuing economic system, needing reform rather than revolution.
Thanks, Casey, for your well constructed and challenging comment.
Thanks for the response, David. To some degree, yes, but more so a critique of the corrupting nature of money and wealth. Perhaps our behavior under capitalism and the various perverse incentives that underpin it is an outward manifestation of something innately human, but there’s also very compelling evidence (e.g. A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit) that humans have a communitarian identity and orientation. My view is that as long as our society promotes and rewards the indiscriminate accumulation of wealth (at the expense of, well, everything that comes at its expense), regardless of whether it’s nominally capitalist or something else, we’re going to keep seeing this uglier, hyperindividualistic side of humanity. To me, that’s worth challenging.
I told my husband about your essay and his first comment was, wealth is fine as long as you tip well! I was laughing because that was my first thought too!
And very generous Christmas bonuses given. I only know one enormously wealthy family, a sibling of a best friend, she and her husband had a long time housekeeper who was trying to buy a house and asked for a LOAN of 10k, they wouldn’t give it to her. Maybe there’s more to the story but it made me sick
that they wouldn’t help her. I always fantasize if I won the lottery what I would do and it would be to subsidize programs for free neuter and spay. Or cruise GoFundMe sites and donate anonymously. I also can’t remember the exact details but there was a professional football player who financed a program to bring medications to people who couldn’t afford migraine medications, and as someone who has migraines I was so impressed with this awareness. Don’t feel guilty about wealth but do be aware of where just a little bit extra can help someone who is on the edge, it can make such a huge difference in someone’s life.
The old starfish on the beach story, the little child throwing the dying starfish back into the ocean, the man with him says why bother, there’s so many, what difference is it going to make? And the child says, “it makes a difference to this one”
David, your courage in tackling this topic with honesty is something I find admirable. I grew up in an immigrant family that started below the poverty line and clawed its way to middle class, but my aunts all married wealthy businessmen and are now billionaires. They cling to their wealth even though they have more money than they will be able to spend in a lifetime, and they are definitely not philanthropic in the least. My parents have been the primary caregivers for my grandmother, and trying to ask them to chip in for the costs of caring for her is like asking them to chop off a limb. When they do visit my grandma, they never stay with us even though there is plenty of room, because they consider us too low-class. It's the way inequality dehumanizes people that bothers me.
All that to say, I don't think wealth in itself is something to feel guilty over. Yes, there is systemic inequality, and there are ways we, as individuals, can combat that. From my limited observations, rich people give less, percentage-wise, than those who live in relatively less comfort. You seem to be doing your part.
Growing up and seeing my aunts behave the way they do, I've always been turned off by obsession with money. Ironically, I ended up marrying a software engineer, so while we're not billionaires, we're definitely in the comfortable upper-middle-class that allows me to have to option to stay home and homeschool our kids. When we first got married, my husband was always thinking about money, obsessing over stocks, etc. He did give about 10% of his income, but worried about money a lot. One year, he listened to a sermon based on Micah 6:8, (now one of our favourite verses), and felt convicted to do something about it. We gave away half our annual income to various local charities. After that, money no longer had such a stranglehold over him. We choose to live below our means so we can give generously. But we still own a sizable home in San Diego, and we take nice trips. Things did change when we had children for whom we are responsible.
Anyways, I share this simply to say that we all have different thresholds for what our conscience demands of us at different points of our lives. I love that you're grappling with these issues and taking us with you on your journey.
Thanks Tiffany for the comment and sharing your story. I think doing one's part is an essential part of one's self-esteem. So I'm past guilt and firmly under the influence of following Micah's definition of morality.
I’ve been ruminating on a response and thought about something I learned in meditation and Judaism. When one does something with intention it makes a huge difference emotionally and spiritually. Ie: when one gives to charity it’s important to give with one’s soul, thanking G-d (or whatever the belief may be) for the procured funds, to be able to give away, to help a fellow human. The intention shouldn’t be— because it’s a tax break, or I get my name on a bench. The intention behind our actions is everything. The intention what you do with any blessing can truly nourish the soul.
That's a good point and is consistent with Maimonides' hierarchy of charitable giving, which involves both intention and the act. It's the mirror image of what you need to prove a crime: both the act and the intention. Admittedly, the fact that I get a charitable deduction influences the amount of my giving, but is too the reason for the giving. And if I'm helping someone directly, taxes don't figure into it.
I really appreciate reading this post and all the comments. I hope nobody is offended by my completely different take on the situation.
Properly designed institutions work in great part because they are positive sum rather than negative or zero sum. The competition (and cooperation) in science, sports and democracy can drive forward positive outcomes (knowledge, entertainment, better governance) at least most of the time, when working properly.
Markets work using a similar dynamic. We generate wealth for ourselves primarily by offering something of value for others. One person sells potatoes, another buys them and benefits from their nutrition. This is a win/win, with both parties improving their lot from the division of labor and exchange. Even competition, when directed properly, can be positive sum, as inventors compete for better tasting potatoes, produced and delivered more efficiently. The win lose between producers is offset by a positive externality driving better products and services.
Long set up to suggest that our wealth, if created by voluntary mutual interactions within properly regulated markets is something to be proud of. We generated prosperity for ourselves and loved ones in a way and manner which also enriched countless strangers. This is extremely moral. Indeed, I would suggest that as long as they play fairly by the rules, most billionaires are creating more value for more people — incomparably more — than you or I. If we wanted to improve the world faster, the place to focus would be in creating new products and services that countless people value enough to voluntarily consume. The entrepreneur gets rich as the world gets better, and the two can be connected. Once rich, the money can be used to support their family, to invest in more products and services benefitting humanity, for charity, or just to fund taxes that support others in society (the top 20% pay virtually all taxes in the US).
At this point I could add a bunch of caveats and exceptions to the rule such as people getting wealthy by cheating, or creating negative externalities or feeding addictions or unhealthy desires. But these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
We need more billionaires, not fewer. My guess that in a few centuries, if humanity continues to thrive, we will all be capable of being billionaires.
Do you truly see value in the way Big Tech is creating a new class of immense wealth? I’d invite you to read Cory Doctorow’s work on what he calls “enshittification.” We are way past selling each other potatoes. Do you know any working class people personally? I don’t mean do you cordially greet them as you walk by. I mean, have you been a guest in their homes? Are you aware of what they are facing? I sometimes think there’s a great lack of awareness. We are not ok.
I argue for generic entrepreneurs, which I would define as those trying to design new or better products and services at a better price. You respond with the example of big tech gone amuck, which I would consider as regrettable fringe case rather than the rule.
If you look around your house you will see thousands of items built up from millions upon millions of these entrepreneurial efforts. These are the product of countless people working to benefit themselves and their families by offering something of value to others. To the extent they do so (absent enshitification), they deserve to be rewarded, and they should not feel guilty about doing so. They have provided value, in some cases to billions of people. Thank you Edison, Ford, Jobs, Musk and countless others.
As to the strange working class comment, I am not sure why you would assume I don’t. I don’t need to be a “guest” in their homes, as many of them are family.
What general lack of awareness are you speaking of? The awareness that a lower middle class person in the US today is better off than 99.9% of the humans that have ever existed? Longer healthier life with incomparably greater wealth, freedom and education?
Let me zero in on my point. The wealth and health of billions of people today has progressed in great part due to people getting wealthy by making their lives better. This isn’t something to bemoan or apologize for. It is something which needs to be celebrated.
I believe capitalism is the best way by far to organize an economy, and I have no issue with the existence of massively wealthy people and families. I'd be against any limits on wealth.
That said, our tax code is set up to favor the wealthy and their descendants. And i think it is morally wrong not to have a higher minimum standard of living paid for by higher taxes.. Higher marginal tax rates are not inconsistent with a booming economy and great innovation and the generation of great companies and fortunes. All you have to do is to look at post-war American history to realize that.
You stated in your essay that you “can’t rationalize the morality of being near the upper end of a vastly unequal distribution of wealth.”
As someone who has been in the top and bottom quintiles of income over their life stages, I can easily rationalize it. In fact, I believe I added more value to my fellow humans when I was at the top of the income scale, than when I was at the bottom, as I produced more of value for others and paid more in taxes. If anything, my desire to drop out of the labor market was kind of selfish. Productive high earners, all else equal, tend to create substantially more value than do indigent surfers (guilty as charged).
I certainly agree society works better when we establish systems that help those when they are down that are subsidized by those when they are ahead. Progressive taxation makes a lot of sense, as do reasonable safety nets.
I am at a loss though how you think a system which has the top quintile paying almost all the income tax is set up to favor the wealthy? How can what is clearly among the most progressive tax systems in the world be biased toward the wealthy? Am I missing something?
When I look at historic effective tax rates over time in the US, the pattern is that the wealthy have contributed more as a percentage, and the middle class and poor have contributed less and less. Fine by me. But surely whatever bias is in the system isn’t in favor of those paying the brunt... is it?
Great response. As much as we love to hate Bezos think about how many jobs he’s created and the convenience of getting a product delivered to our door step. While I try to support mom and pop shops, I can appreciate the population who doesn’t have the time, money, transport, etc who needs the convenience and better pricing from Amazon.
That said, I completely disagree with many issues Gates pushes on the population. We can’t win ‘em all.
David, I'm impressed with your willingness to grapple openly on a subject matter that is soooo profoundly important to the state of the world as a whole and, at once, so terribly difficult to parse and to speak on. As someone who has envied the type of wealth you're talking about having and has known what it's like to have very little (and how costly that can be) and, at the same time, lives with certain privilege by circumstance of birth, the kindness of friends and family, and a safety net that is for sure enviable to others, I, too, grapple with how to understand and engage about wealth and inequity.
I realize how naive I sound when I say what I believe simply is that there is abundance enough that a redistribution of the wealth and resources in existence could ensure no one has to live in the kind of poverty I see outside my window, often closer than I would otherwise experience it, in my travel life without the severely wealthy taking any noticeable hit.
I read recently that, I think it was 76 percent, of people in the US live paycheck to paycheck in such a way that a single medical or other catastrophe could knock them into poverty. I think about my own current situation, where I've had an unexpected diagnosis that's taking up a bunch of my time and resources and have simultaneously lost the major income stream I relied on for decades. I am unspeakably fortunate to have friends and family to offer me homes and loans while I sort out what comes next. And I'm keenly aware of how much fortune is a piece of that. I know well what my life in a van would look and feel like without the wealth of kindness and resources that has been extended to me during these months of pain and fatigue and needing to get to multiple health care appointments--a very different picture than the adventure lifestyle I'd been living. It's wild to think of so many people living on the brink and how many might not have family and friends so able to share as I have.
I've gone on. But I just want to thank you for opening up an important discussion and thought experiment. I find it brave and generous. And perhaps one day I'll write on the subject inspired by your having done so.
Thanks for the comment. I always enjoy reading what you write. i don't think your statement is naive. We are wealthy enough as a country so that no one's life should be wrecked because they can't afford healthcare. We are a distinct outlier in that compared to our peer wealthy countries.
I'm glad that you have a supportive network. I believe that most people want to help others and will rise to occasions. Now that might sound naive, but I believe we rarely hear about quiet acts of generosity and instead hear about nastiness so our views are skewed toward pessimism.
Yes, I agree that individually, we’re generally pretty dope. We humans, that is. It’s in the aggregate that we become questionable. Ha! Really it’s the systems that get created and then take control so serve as the aggregate or at least as the consequences thereof that are so problematic.
And yeah, it would be nice if the many, many, not-so-small-to-those-involved kindnesses that happen daily were seen more widely. It’s one of the reasons the Ask and Give essays (stories about strangers showing up for each other) are a regular feature on my stack. I have a couple guest posters scheduled to tell their stories over the next few months and hope to collect even more. :)
You always write with such honesty and thoughtfulness. I don't envy the constant wrestling you do with yourself over your material wealth--it seems like a burden to you, but one that, understandably, you are not willing to relinquish. In the Torah (I can't recall which chapter and verse) it says that there will always be rich people and always be poor people. It's baked into the human condition. As to your wish for a far greater societal safety net, that has boomeranged spectacularly. Amity Shlaes's books (The Forgotten Man, Great Society) and other writings show an airtight correlation between the New Deal spending and the prolonging of the Great Depression. LBJ's Great Society began to sync with the breakdown in particular of the Black family, which had been stable even during the worst eras of prejudice. Poverty is linked more than anything else to kids growing up with only one parent, not to our current system of capitalism. Studies also prove that above a certain tax rate, govt doesn't take in more revenue, because people will resent the govt taking what they rightly believe doesn't belong to them. And govt also wastes so much of it, who can blame anyone for not wanting to throw more slops into the trough? Also, the more that the govt has subsidized single motherhood (which began in the '60s), the less men have bothered to take responsibility for their children, and this has been devastating for children and for our society. For this and other reasons, giving away more money to people doesn't, in fact, lead to their coming up in the world. It creates an insidious and damaging resentment of others. Nothing is more uplifting than when people can make their own way in the world. Look at what's happened due to Covid spending--how many young adults were living in mom and dad's basement, playing video games, and lost their drive to go out and be productive? I realize I've gone on for a bit here, but your good heart and compassion have so far led you to ideas that are proven not to really help the problem.
This is my favorite response. I wholeheartedly agree and there are many studies that prove your point. Currently, I am disgusted by the college bail outs. Hubby and I moved out of a beautiful home so we could use the capital gains to pay off our kids’ college tuition. I don’t think giving more money to the government is the answer— especially when that money is dolled out as an invite bribe for a future vote.
Judy, I appreciate your comments. We will have to agree to disagree for now about the history you cite. But I'm sure I'll write something eventually that will address some of your points of view. To be continued!
This post has unearthed some discomfiting emotions. I am one of those who envy people like you, knowing that my own life is enviable to many. I understand the allure of comfort because I miss the comfort my husband and I could afford when we had two jobs at the top of a low-paid industry (publishing). Owning up to this makes me feel small-minded. Downward mobility shouldn’t bother someone who is healthy, loved and creatively engaged, yet the hard fact is that it does. I have written honestly about lots of thorny matters, but never money and its impact on life. Money is Everest for me—and many others, I suspect. Kudos to you for interrogating yourself in this chilly and challenging realm.
Rona, I would counter that owning up to an emotion that you dislike in yourself is the definition of open-mindedness. And i like "chilly and challenging realm." The only mountain I'm likely to climb.
Rona, I understand what you mean about envying the allure of comfort. I grew up with parents who worried constantly about money because they were both raised during the Depression. My mom grew up on a farm, my dad in Boston. His father was ill and never earned much and at one point they apparently lost their house as a result. The fear of imposing that kind of poverty on his own family is what led my dad to kill himself when I was 13. My mom always made sure my sister and I had what we needed but whatever we wanted we had to work for. I worked full time from the time I graduated from college until I had my first child when I was 35. My husband earned a decent living but I worked part time so I could stay home with the kids. I did a lot of creative accounting until they were in late high school and university, when we paid off our house and our cars and my husband was earning more and suddenly I didn't have to worry so much. Boy is that ever freeing. I never in my life thought I'd be in a position to afford what I need AND want. It's taken a long time to get here, but we're also in a position where we can help our kids, both of whom have good jobs but neither of whom can afford to buy a house on their own. My husband has been saying we should buy a vacation home, but he travels so much for work he barely has time for vacations. I told him it would make more sense to help the kids. (And yes, we also give to charities, but we've always done that.)
I appreciate as always your candidness and willingness to speak about a subject so few wealthy Americans dare even broach. What strikes me most is our inability (especially as Americans) to untangle our own ideas about morality with our visions of what it means to lead a respectable life when it comes to wielding power. It is a Catch-22 in a country in which wealth, i.e. power, is more or less dictated as the be-all and end-all of any baseline for "success."
Without overstating it, power is by definition corrupting after a certain amount, which is why I'm always brought back to this idea, which we discussed briefly in Paris, about instating a SALARY CAP ON HUMANS. Make it $5 million a year. or $50 million. Whatever it is, make it large enough to where no reasonable person could ever argue they "needed more." Because the point is, if humans COULDN'T make more, maybe they wouldn't be so upset about relinquishing it. This would fundamentally change the ideas surrounding capitalistic morality and the Protestant Work Ethic, of course, but I'm not so sure that's such a bad thing?
Caps are so hard to enforce. For example, most great fortunes come from owning a business.
I am not offended by people who acquire great wealth without legal limit, provided, however, that we have a tax code that is much more efficient and progressive and that the additional money is used for a Scandanavian type of of social support system.
There are so many tax loopholes that could and should be closed and only persist because of special interest lobbying.
It's interesting that Weber's theory was based on Calvinist doctrine that wealth equalled entrance to heaven in contrast to the Christian saying about how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven.
I love the Micah passage. This makes me think of another passage, in the Proverbs of Solomon: "The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the Maker of them all." I don't think unequal distribution of wealth is the primary problem, rather it is the assumption that greater wealth makes one better than another who has less resources. It is the societal habit of giving preference of place to those who already have the economic resources to adequately provide for themselves.
A small example of this is plane boarding patterns. The first class passengers have exclusive lounges in which to wait, but they are called to board first, while the regular passengers, who have often overflowed the common seating areas so that many are standing, must wait to board, sometimes for long periods. Yet while in the plane, both sets of passengers breathe the same pressurized cabin air and if the plane crashes, they are all equally mortal. To put it in the words of the Christian epistle writer James:
"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?... If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers."
No doubt that First Class is one of the most in-your-face examples of societal sorting according to assumed wealth. When you're sitting in FC, you're not walking humbly with your God. And you are inciting some envy in some people. But, still, I do it, because I prize my comfort at some impossible to define moral cost.
It isn't the First Class seats that are where the societal preference for the wealthy is so obvious - it is understood that larger seats would be more expensive because fewer people can sit in those sections - it isn't even in those exclusive lounges where the First Class waits because those lounges also take up space that costs money. It is in how First Class passengers are pandered too by being moved quicker through security, boarding, and baggage lines, to remove from them the inconveniences of the regular passangers. In removing those inconveniences from the wealthier - devoting time and energy to that purpose - it subtly increases the time spent in those lines by the regular passengers. That is where the favouritism shows.
You have no moral guilt if you did not coerce or defraud anyone in the process of attaining your wealth. If you inherited it, your parents may have made a mistake but there's nothing immoral. A better question would be if your beloved dog was drowning or a stranger (human)- which would you save? Your expensive clothing provide jobs and livelihood to man, so that is a good.. You are entitled to your life and everything you produce with it. (Non-procreative things).
We owe each other the respect and dignity inherent in the life God gave us. Morality is based on individual life and his property.
As they say, hearses don’t have trailer hitches for a reason.
The joy is in giving it away. I don’t have much, but I have more than the two young moms who work at the local bistro and who both have newborn infants. Diapers are expensive. $50 a month can help ease the burden on them as they raise the generation that will take our place. What better thing can $100 a month buy?
Give it away. Be free from it. Don’t do it by proxy, do it anonymously and do it yourself. Strive to die broke, but happy, because it doesn’t get richer than that.
If you need ideas, dm me. I spent my lifetime working on this problem and found some unbelievable opportunities such as restoring sight to kids and oldsters for $35 an eye. Or how about helping an entire village get access to clean water for a few thousand dollars of which none goes to overhead?
The people aren’t often helped by millions or billions of dollars. Their lives are changed by tens or hundreds of dollars well spent.
I think doing both forms of giving are worthwhile. That $100 a month is a wonderful thing to do. .
I have intervened directly in many cases as I've learned that sometimes a relatively small amount of money to me can be a game changer for someone else. The organizations we support have very slim overheads and do a lot with few dollars because they use volunteers and donated goods.
Over the years, I was involved with several micro-finance loan programs, which is maybe one of the most successful ways of alleviating poverty. The last program I oversaw was also the most technically mature. It was based in a remote region of a former Soviet republic, where the only available loan option was from 9% per week loan sharks. We were fully licensed to offer credit products by the central bank and really had no competition from the few ex-Soviet commercial banks in the country who had didn’t have capacity or experience with small loan products. Loan sharks were our only competitors and were used to having the small loan market to themselves.
We eventually had loan capital north of $3 million, and it was no longer a project that required external donor funding for organizational support because we were paying our own way. Our most pressing problem was that we couldn’t meet the demand for credit, especially for agricultural loans. The project was mature enough that we were looking for investors and commercial lenders for additional loan capital and were ready to borrow at market rates, but it was difficult to find investors who were interested in what we were offering.
So to summarize, the most ethical way to be a rich person is to be a really bad one. Underpay employees, don't give any money away, and create the biggest environmental footprint your wealth allows. That will inspire such horror that such a lifestyle is possible, resulting in systemic change which ultimately creates a better world for more people than if said rich person gives away 90% of their income to people who are suffering now.
The points I was trying to make was that individual action is not a substitute for systemic change and, yes, it may be that a good rich person is more effective at maintaining the systemic status quo
And you made them well. Thank you.
You give me so much to think about. I really appreciate your honesty, clarity, and thoughtfulness, David. I'm so glad to have found you here on Substack. I'm reading a novel, Walk the Dark, by Paul Cody, that you might find interesting. His character reminds me of Barbara Kingsolver's Demon Copperhead and the Demon Copperhead doppleganger whom my husband and I took in for a month last fall—these are people at the complete opposite end of the spectrum from where you are, but both Kingsolver and Cody humanize them in a way that I think shows how very insidious poverty is. I'd be curious to know your take if you read either or both books.
This is another courageous essay David, I admire you greatly for that alone. As far as wealth is concerned, my personal view is very simple; if it has been earned without corruption or violence, without theft or dishonesty or exploitation of others then it is deserved. No matter that it comes from generations of hard workers, if you are fortunate enough to be on the receiving end, enjoy. But, never forget where it came from and always always be humble, kind to those less fortunate and never take one cent of it for granted. I think you fall very well under all these categories and for that I thank you.
But it’s difficult to identify any great wealth that came about without exploitation. Our entire system is built on exploitation.
So very true… I always try to believe that there are and always were compassionate and honest land owners… I couldn’t face the day without that!
I appreciate this post, which I found succinct and thoughtful. At first, I was concerned that it would fall victim to the very phenomenon it sought to address, offloading the difficult personal analysis to the anecdotes in Uneasy Street to create some distance between the author at the problem. Ultimately I think you corrected this issue for the most part, although that distance is certainly still present (and perhaps that tension is inherent to the overall conclusion).
I still think that there’s a great deal of analysis missing, though. In December I wrote about money and corruption, going back to the origin of money and what changed upon its introduction to human society. Taking the human propensity to be selfish and individualistic — and to have wealth accumulation in and of itself as a goal in life — as a given is part of what I think is worth challenging. This piece only tackles structural issues insofar as it relates to tax policies and social safety nets, but totally assumes the dominance of money and growth above all else. But what is that predicated upon? Environmental degradation and the exploitation of vulnerable populations, for starters.
In the search for the moral justification of your (or any individual’s) wealth belongs the search for the moral justification of wealth, period, and what is implied by the generation of wealth as a be-all-end-all. You touch on the well-meaning yet patronizing attitudes of the wealthy toward the poor in everyday interactions, but that’s only one facet of the
erosion of community and solidarity under capitalism. I don’t consider that reality to be inevitable. Maybe this discussion would fit better in a different post — ultimately, I think you write concisely and coherently about a complex topic, and adding more layers might make it untenable. I just think that it could go much deeper by challenging some premises.
I think your more wide-sweeping critique of wealth is a critique of human nature––our selfishness and prizing ourselves above community more often than not. Right now, i can't see how that might happen, but maybe my views will change. You're right in that I assume a continuation of capitalism as the continuing economic system, needing reform rather than revolution.
Thanks, Casey, for your well constructed and challenging comment.
Thanks for the response, David. To some degree, yes, but more so a critique of the corrupting nature of money and wealth. Perhaps our behavior under capitalism and the various perverse incentives that underpin it is an outward manifestation of something innately human, but there’s also very compelling evidence (e.g. A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit) that humans have a communitarian identity and orientation. My view is that as long as our society promotes and rewards the indiscriminate accumulation of wealth (at the expense of, well, everything that comes at its expense), regardless of whether it’s nominally capitalist or something else, we’re going to keep seeing this uglier, hyperindividualistic side of humanity. To me, that’s worth challenging.
I told my husband about your essay and his first comment was, wealth is fine as long as you tip well! I was laughing because that was my first thought too!
And very generous Christmas bonuses given. I only know one enormously wealthy family, a sibling of a best friend, she and her husband had a long time housekeeper who was trying to buy a house and asked for a LOAN of 10k, they wouldn’t give it to her. Maybe there’s more to the story but it made me sick
that they wouldn’t help her. I always fantasize if I won the lottery what I would do and it would be to subsidize programs for free neuter and spay. Or cruise GoFundMe sites and donate anonymously. I also can’t remember the exact details but there was a professional football player who financed a program to bring medications to people who couldn’t afford migraine medications, and as someone who has migraines I was so impressed with this awareness. Don’t feel guilty about wealth but do be aware of where just a little bit extra can help someone who is on the edge, it can make such a huge difference in someone’s life.
Thanks for the comment Gail and I look for opportunities to step in where some extra help can make a big difference.
The old starfish on the beach story, the little child throwing the dying starfish back into the ocean, the man with him says why bother, there’s so many, what difference is it going to make? And the child says, “it makes a difference to this one”
I LOVE that story!
David, your courage in tackling this topic with honesty is something I find admirable. I grew up in an immigrant family that started below the poverty line and clawed its way to middle class, but my aunts all married wealthy businessmen and are now billionaires. They cling to their wealth even though they have more money than they will be able to spend in a lifetime, and they are definitely not philanthropic in the least. My parents have been the primary caregivers for my grandmother, and trying to ask them to chip in for the costs of caring for her is like asking them to chop off a limb. When they do visit my grandma, they never stay with us even though there is plenty of room, because they consider us too low-class. It's the way inequality dehumanizes people that bothers me.
All that to say, I don't think wealth in itself is something to feel guilty over. Yes, there is systemic inequality, and there are ways we, as individuals, can combat that. From my limited observations, rich people give less, percentage-wise, than those who live in relatively less comfort. You seem to be doing your part.
Growing up and seeing my aunts behave the way they do, I've always been turned off by obsession with money. Ironically, I ended up marrying a software engineer, so while we're not billionaires, we're definitely in the comfortable upper-middle-class that allows me to have to option to stay home and homeschool our kids. When we first got married, my husband was always thinking about money, obsessing over stocks, etc. He did give about 10% of his income, but worried about money a lot. One year, he listened to a sermon based on Micah 6:8, (now one of our favourite verses), and felt convicted to do something about it. We gave away half our annual income to various local charities. After that, money no longer had such a stranglehold over him. We choose to live below our means so we can give generously. But we still own a sizable home in San Diego, and we take nice trips. Things did change when we had children for whom we are responsible.
Anyways, I share this simply to say that we all have different thresholds for what our conscience demands of us at different points of our lives. I love that you're grappling with these issues and taking us with you on your journey.
Thanks Tiffany for the comment and sharing your story. I think doing one's part is an essential part of one's self-esteem. So I'm past guilt and firmly under the influence of following Micah's definition of morality.
I’ve been ruminating on a response and thought about something I learned in meditation and Judaism. When one does something with intention it makes a huge difference emotionally and spiritually. Ie: when one gives to charity it’s important to give with one’s soul, thanking G-d (or whatever the belief may be) for the procured funds, to be able to give away, to help a fellow human. The intention shouldn’t be— because it’s a tax break, or I get my name on a bench. The intention behind our actions is everything. The intention what you do with any blessing can truly nourish the soul.
That's a good point and is consistent with Maimonides' hierarchy of charitable giving, which involves both intention and the act. It's the mirror image of what you need to prove a crime: both the act and the intention. Admittedly, the fact that I get a charitable deduction influences the amount of my giving, but is too the reason for the giving. And if I'm helping someone directly, taxes don't figure into it.
It’s a good feeling, a commandment and what we’re meant to do. 🥰🙏
I really appreciate reading this post and all the comments. I hope nobody is offended by my completely different take on the situation.
Properly designed institutions work in great part because they are positive sum rather than negative or zero sum. The competition (and cooperation) in science, sports and democracy can drive forward positive outcomes (knowledge, entertainment, better governance) at least most of the time, when working properly.
Markets work using a similar dynamic. We generate wealth for ourselves primarily by offering something of value for others. One person sells potatoes, another buys them and benefits from their nutrition. This is a win/win, with both parties improving their lot from the division of labor and exchange. Even competition, when directed properly, can be positive sum, as inventors compete for better tasting potatoes, produced and delivered more efficiently. The win lose between producers is offset by a positive externality driving better products and services.
Long set up to suggest that our wealth, if created by voluntary mutual interactions within properly regulated markets is something to be proud of. We generated prosperity for ourselves and loved ones in a way and manner which also enriched countless strangers. This is extremely moral. Indeed, I would suggest that as long as they play fairly by the rules, most billionaires are creating more value for more people — incomparably more — than you or I. If we wanted to improve the world faster, the place to focus would be in creating new products and services that countless people value enough to voluntarily consume. The entrepreneur gets rich as the world gets better, and the two can be connected. Once rich, the money can be used to support their family, to invest in more products and services benefitting humanity, for charity, or just to fund taxes that support others in society (the top 20% pay virtually all taxes in the US).
At this point I could add a bunch of caveats and exceptions to the rule such as people getting wealthy by cheating, or creating negative externalities or feeding addictions or unhealthy desires. But these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
We need more billionaires, not fewer. My guess that in a few centuries, if humanity continues to thrive, we will all be capable of being billionaires.
Do you truly see value in the way Big Tech is creating a new class of immense wealth? I’d invite you to read Cory Doctorow’s work on what he calls “enshittification.” We are way past selling each other potatoes. Do you know any working class people personally? I don’t mean do you cordially greet them as you walk by. I mean, have you been a guest in their homes? Are you aware of what they are facing? I sometimes think there’s a great lack of awareness. We are not ok.
I argue for generic entrepreneurs, which I would define as those trying to design new or better products and services at a better price. You respond with the example of big tech gone amuck, which I would consider as regrettable fringe case rather than the rule.
If you look around your house you will see thousands of items built up from millions upon millions of these entrepreneurial efforts. These are the product of countless people working to benefit themselves and their families by offering something of value to others. To the extent they do so (absent enshitification), they deserve to be rewarded, and they should not feel guilty about doing so. They have provided value, in some cases to billions of people. Thank you Edison, Ford, Jobs, Musk and countless others.
As to the strange working class comment, I am not sure why you would assume I don’t. I don’t need to be a “guest” in their homes, as many of them are family.
What general lack of awareness are you speaking of? The awareness that a lower middle class person in the US today is better off than 99.9% of the humans that have ever existed? Longer healthier life with incomparably greater wealth, freedom and education?
Let me zero in on my point. The wealth and health of billions of people today has progressed in great part due to people getting wealthy by making their lives better. This isn’t something to bemoan or apologize for. It is something which needs to be celebrated.
I believe capitalism is the best way by far to organize an economy, and I have no issue with the existence of massively wealthy people and families. I'd be against any limits on wealth.
That said, our tax code is set up to favor the wealthy and their descendants. And i think it is morally wrong not to have a higher minimum standard of living paid for by higher taxes.. Higher marginal tax rates are not inconsistent with a booming economy and great innovation and the generation of great companies and fortunes. All you have to do is to look at post-war American history to realize that.
Thanks for responding…
You stated in your essay that you “can’t rationalize the morality of being near the upper end of a vastly unequal distribution of wealth.”
As someone who has been in the top and bottom quintiles of income over their life stages, I can easily rationalize it. In fact, I believe I added more value to my fellow humans when I was at the top of the income scale, than when I was at the bottom, as I produced more of value for others and paid more in taxes. If anything, my desire to drop out of the labor market was kind of selfish. Productive high earners, all else equal, tend to create substantially more value than do indigent surfers (guilty as charged).
I certainly agree society works better when we establish systems that help those when they are down that are subsidized by those when they are ahead. Progressive taxation makes a lot of sense, as do reasonable safety nets.
I am at a loss though how you think a system which has the top quintile paying almost all the income tax is set up to favor the wealthy? How can what is clearly among the most progressive tax systems in the world be biased toward the wealthy? Am I missing something?
When I look at historic effective tax rates over time in the US, the pattern is that the wealthy have contributed more as a percentage, and the middle class and poor have contributed less and less. Fine by me. But surely whatever bias is in the system isn’t in favor of those paying the brunt... is it?
Great response. As much as we love to hate Bezos think about how many jobs he’s created and the convenience of getting a product delivered to our door step. While I try to support mom and pop shops, I can appreciate the population who doesn’t have the time, money, transport, etc who needs the convenience and better pricing from Amazon.
That said, I completely disagree with many issues Gates pushes on the population. We can’t win ‘em all.
David, I'm impressed with your willingness to grapple openly on a subject matter that is soooo profoundly important to the state of the world as a whole and, at once, so terribly difficult to parse and to speak on. As someone who has envied the type of wealth you're talking about having and has known what it's like to have very little (and how costly that can be) and, at the same time, lives with certain privilege by circumstance of birth, the kindness of friends and family, and a safety net that is for sure enviable to others, I, too, grapple with how to understand and engage about wealth and inequity.
I realize how naive I sound when I say what I believe simply is that there is abundance enough that a redistribution of the wealth and resources in existence could ensure no one has to live in the kind of poverty I see outside my window, often closer than I would otherwise experience it, in my travel life without the severely wealthy taking any noticeable hit.
I read recently that, I think it was 76 percent, of people in the US live paycheck to paycheck in such a way that a single medical or other catastrophe could knock them into poverty. I think about my own current situation, where I've had an unexpected diagnosis that's taking up a bunch of my time and resources and have simultaneously lost the major income stream I relied on for decades. I am unspeakably fortunate to have friends and family to offer me homes and loans while I sort out what comes next. And I'm keenly aware of how much fortune is a piece of that. I know well what my life in a van would look and feel like without the wealth of kindness and resources that has been extended to me during these months of pain and fatigue and needing to get to multiple health care appointments--a very different picture than the adventure lifestyle I'd been living. It's wild to think of so many people living on the brink and how many might not have family and friends so able to share as I have.
I've gone on. But I just want to thank you for opening up an important discussion and thought experiment. I find it brave and generous. And perhaps one day I'll write on the subject inspired by your having done so.
Holly,
Thanks for the comment. I always enjoy reading what you write. i don't think your statement is naive. We are wealthy enough as a country so that no one's life should be wrecked because they can't afford healthcare. We are a distinct outlier in that compared to our peer wealthy countries.
I'm glad that you have a supportive network. I believe that most people want to help others and will rise to occasions. Now that might sound naive, but I believe we rarely hear about quiet acts of generosity and instead hear about nastiness so our views are skewed toward pessimism.
Yes, I agree that individually, we’re generally pretty dope. We humans, that is. It’s in the aggregate that we become questionable. Ha! Really it’s the systems that get created and then take control so serve as the aggregate or at least as the consequences thereof that are so problematic.
And yeah, it would be nice if the many, many, not-so-small-to-those-involved kindnesses that happen daily were seen more widely. It’s one of the reasons the Ask and Give essays (stories about strangers showing up for each other) are a regular feature on my stack. I have a couple guest posters scheduled to tell their stories over the next few months and hope to collect even more. :)
You always write with such honesty and thoughtfulness. I don't envy the constant wrestling you do with yourself over your material wealth--it seems like a burden to you, but one that, understandably, you are not willing to relinquish. In the Torah (I can't recall which chapter and verse) it says that there will always be rich people and always be poor people. It's baked into the human condition. As to your wish for a far greater societal safety net, that has boomeranged spectacularly. Amity Shlaes's books (The Forgotten Man, Great Society) and other writings show an airtight correlation between the New Deal spending and the prolonging of the Great Depression. LBJ's Great Society began to sync with the breakdown in particular of the Black family, which had been stable even during the worst eras of prejudice. Poverty is linked more than anything else to kids growing up with only one parent, not to our current system of capitalism. Studies also prove that above a certain tax rate, govt doesn't take in more revenue, because people will resent the govt taking what they rightly believe doesn't belong to them. And govt also wastes so much of it, who can blame anyone for not wanting to throw more slops into the trough? Also, the more that the govt has subsidized single motherhood (which began in the '60s), the less men have bothered to take responsibility for their children, and this has been devastating for children and for our society. For this and other reasons, giving away more money to people doesn't, in fact, lead to their coming up in the world. It creates an insidious and damaging resentment of others. Nothing is more uplifting than when people can make their own way in the world. Look at what's happened due to Covid spending--how many young adults were living in mom and dad's basement, playing video games, and lost their drive to go out and be productive? I realize I've gone on for a bit here, but your good heart and compassion have so far led you to ideas that are proven not to really help the problem.
This is my favorite response. I wholeheartedly agree and there are many studies that prove your point. Currently, I am disgusted by the college bail outs. Hubby and I moved out of a beautiful home so we could use the capital gains to pay off our kids’ college tuition. I don’t think giving more money to the government is the answer— especially when that money is dolled out as an invite bribe for a future vote.
Not relevant to the topic.
Concerning your feelings about higher education, an
#EarnedHigherEducationScholarship policy is an INVESTMENT, not an expense.
Invisible bribe.
Judy, I appreciate your comments. We will have to agree to disagree for now about the history you cite. But I'm sure I'll write something eventually that will address some of your points of view. To be continued!
This post has unearthed some discomfiting emotions. I am one of those who envy people like you, knowing that my own life is enviable to many. I understand the allure of comfort because I miss the comfort my husband and I could afford when we had two jobs at the top of a low-paid industry (publishing). Owning up to this makes me feel small-minded. Downward mobility shouldn’t bother someone who is healthy, loved and creatively engaged, yet the hard fact is that it does. I have written honestly about lots of thorny matters, but never money and its impact on life. Money is Everest for me—and many others, I suspect. Kudos to you for interrogating yourself in this chilly and challenging realm.
Rona, I would counter that owning up to an emotion that you dislike in yourself is the definition of open-mindedness. And i like "chilly and challenging realm." The only mountain I'm likely to climb.
Rona, I understand what you mean about envying the allure of comfort. I grew up with parents who worried constantly about money because they were both raised during the Depression. My mom grew up on a farm, my dad in Boston. His father was ill and never earned much and at one point they apparently lost their house as a result. The fear of imposing that kind of poverty on his own family is what led my dad to kill himself when I was 13. My mom always made sure my sister and I had what we needed but whatever we wanted we had to work for. I worked full time from the time I graduated from college until I had my first child when I was 35. My husband earned a decent living but I worked part time so I could stay home with the kids. I did a lot of creative accounting until they were in late high school and university, when we paid off our house and our cars and my husband was earning more and suddenly I didn't have to worry so much. Boy is that ever freeing. I never in my life thought I'd be in a position to afford what I need AND want. It's taken a long time to get here, but we're also in a position where we can help our kids, both of whom have good jobs but neither of whom can afford to buy a house on their own. My husband has been saying we should buy a vacation home, but he travels so much for work he barely has time for vacations. I told him it would make more sense to help the kids. (And yes, we also give to charities, but we've always done that.)
I appreciate as always your candidness and willingness to speak about a subject so few wealthy Americans dare even broach. What strikes me most is our inability (especially as Americans) to untangle our own ideas about morality with our visions of what it means to lead a respectable life when it comes to wielding power. It is a Catch-22 in a country in which wealth, i.e. power, is more or less dictated as the be-all and end-all of any baseline for "success."
Without overstating it, power is by definition corrupting after a certain amount, which is why I'm always brought back to this idea, which we discussed briefly in Paris, about instating a SALARY CAP ON HUMANS. Make it $5 million a year. or $50 million. Whatever it is, make it large enough to where no reasonable person could ever argue they "needed more." Because the point is, if humans COULDN'T make more, maybe they wouldn't be so upset about relinquishing it. This would fundamentally change the ideas surrounding capitalistic morality and the Protestant Work Ethic, of course, but I'm not so sure that's such a bad thing?
Hi Samuel,
Caps are so hard to enforce. For example, most great fortunes come from owning a business.
I am not offended by people who acquire great wealth without legal limit, provided, however, that we have a tax code that is much more efficient and progressive and that the additional money is used for a Scandanavian type of of social support system.
There are so many tax loopholes that could and should be closed and only persist because of special interest lobbying.
It's interesting that Weber's theory was based on Calvinist doctrine that wealth equalled entrance to heaven in contrast to the Christian saying about how hard it is for a rich man to enter heaven.
I love the Micah passage. This makes me think of another passage, in the Proverbs of Solomon: "The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the Maker of them all." I don't think unequal distribution of wealth is the primary problem, rather it is the assumption that greater wealth makes one better than another who has less resources. It is the societal habit of giving preference of place to those who already have the economic resources to adequately provide for themselves.
A small example of this is plane boarding patterns. The first class passengers have exclusive lounges in which to wait, but they are called to board first, while the regular passengers, who have often overflowed the common seating areas so that many are standing, must wait to board, sometimes for long periods. Yet while in the plane, both sets of passengers breathe the same pressurized cabin air and if the plane crashes, they are all equally mortal. To put it in the words of the Christian epistle writer James:
"Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?... If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers."
No doubt that First Class is one of the most in-your-face examples of societal sorting according to assumed wealth. When you're sitting in FC, you're not walking humbly with your God. And you are inciting some envy in some people. But, still, I do it, because I prize my comfort at some impossible to define moral cost.
It isn't the First Class seats that are where the societal preference for the wealthy is so obvious - it is understood that larger seats would be more expensive because fewer people can sit in those sections - it isn't even in those exclusive lounges where the First Class waits because those lounges also take up space that costs money. It is in how First Class passengers are pandered too by being moved quicker through security, boarding, and baggage lines, to remove from them the inconveniences of the regular passangers. In removing those inconveniences from the wealthier - devoting time and energy to that purpose - it subtly increases the time spent in those lines by the regular passengers. That is where the favouritism shows.
You have no moral guilt if you did not coerce or defraud anyone in the process of attaining your wealth. If you inherited it, your parents may have made a mistake but there's nothing immoral. A better question would be if your beloved dog was drowning or a stranger (human)- which would you save? Your expensive clothing provide jobs and livelihood to man, so that is a good.. You are entitled to your life and everything you produce with it. (Non-procreative things).
We owe each other the respect and dignity inherent in the life God gave us. Morality is based on individual life and his property.
As they say, hearses don’t have trailer hitches for a reason.
The joy is in giving it away. I don’t have much, but I have more than the two young moms who work at the local bistro and who both have newborn infants. Diapers are expensive. $50 a month can help ease the burden on them as they raise the generation that will take our place. What better thing can $100 a month buy?
Give it away. Be free from it. Don’t do it by proxy, do it anonymously and do it yourself. Strive to die broke, but happy, because it doesn’t get richer than that.
If you need ideas, dm me. I spent my lifetime working on this problem and found some unbelievable opportunities such as restoring sight to kids and oldsters for $35 an eye. Or how about helping an entire village get access to clean water for a few thousand dollars of which none goes to overhead?
The people aren’t often helped by millions or billions of dollars. Their lives are changed by tens or hundreds of dollars well spent.
I think doing both forms of giving are worthwhile. That $100 a month is a wonderful thing to do. .
I have intervened directly in many cases as I've learned that sometimes a relatively small amount of money to me can be a game changer for someone else. The organizations we support have very slim overheads and do a lot with few dollars because they use volunteers and donated goods.
Here's one example i wrote about.,
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/thirty-meals-at-a-food-bank-something
I like it.
Over the years, I was involved with several micro-finance loan programs, which is maybe one of the most successful ways of alleviating poverty. The last program I oversaw was also the most technically mature. It was based in a remote region of a former Soviet republic, where the only available loan option was from 9% per week loan sharks. We were fully licensed to offer credit products by the central bank and really had no competition from the few ex-Soviet commercial banks in the country who had didn’t have capacity or experience with small loan products. Loan sharks were our only competitors and were used to having the small loan market to themselves.
We eventually had loan capital north of $3 million, and it was no longer a project that required external donor funding for organizational support because we were paying our own way. Our most pressing problem was that we couldn’t meet the demand for credit, especially for agricultural loans. The project was mature enough that we were looking for investors and commercial lenders for additional loan capital and were ready to borrow at market rates, but it was difficult to find investors who were interested in what we were offering.
Hey, at least you don’t speak bullshit trying to justify your own existence. That’s a sign of morality and ethical behavior.