Capitalism can't be held blameless. At the periphery of Help Wanted is the company's deep hostility to labor unions. The characters mention several times how they're too afraid to even talk to a union organizer. The major corporations in America - Amazon, Target, Walmart, Starbucks - are virulently anti-union. Through legislation (the PRO Act) they can be forced to treat their workers better. The threat of automation isn't great enough for there to be fears that if workers ask for "too much" they'll all be automated away. Amazon needs human beings in its warehouses. Physical robots can't stock all the Walmart shelves. They can't supervise, they can't respond to customer questions in-store etc. Ultimately, a stronger labor movement and better legislation is needed so these companies start to profit-share and stop exploiting their workforce.
Thanks Ross. Our solutions are similar in that both yours and mine would rely on legislation. I have more confidence that direct cash transfers would have a greater impact and a more certain outcome than any other form of legislation. Cash transfers worked very well during Covid without a lot of friction.
You're right about the current state of automation, but automation technology keeps advancing and I assume that its cost will decline over time.
Cash transfers are fine, but whatever amount you set - let's say $1k a month, as proposed by Yang - amounts to a poverty wage. I like the idea of UBI. But ultimately, what a union can win for you (a middle-class wage, healthcare coverage, a predictable work schedule) can't be found through UBI. It's about the leverage of the worker, and the worker can still extract plenty *particularly* in this economy where stores like the ones depicted in Waldman's novel are actually having a hard time finding workers. The automation threat is a thing, but it's easy to believe that it's a near-future threat vs. something many decades off. Jobs get automated away all the time but there's still a lot of physical human work required to run large corporations.
I'd add, the fact that the minimum wage is now $16 in NYC is directly the result of union action. Most major job protections Americans enjoy today, including the concept (not always followed) of an 8-hour workday, weekends, and paid sick days are the result of labor agitation in the last century. Notable too, the $16 wage, in NYC today, is not very much money - it equates to a bit over $30,000 a year - but it's way, way more than the $12K a year promised under the UBI proposal. Unions can't solve every problem and I'm not naive, but the precarity of the non-unionized worker is a subtle but large theme in Help Wanted.
I'm not against workers having more leverage. But a lot of the legislation about unionization is state by state. Corporations are really good at exploiting state level differences (also in terms of corporate income tax, which is an enormously complicated state revenue issue).
I think a higher minimum wage is good, especially if it could be done at the federal level.
I don't like UBI. I like the Covid-era expanded Child Tax Credit that unfortunately didn't last more than a year or so. I've come around to medicare for all. I also think we should reverse some of the more brutal aspects of the Clinton welfare reforms, which made cash payments so difficult to get.
Of course, all this would require a heavier tax burden, which should hit the wealthy harder but would have to be broad based.
As well, I could write a whole post on the legal tax loopholes. i.e., tax expenditures that exist, which have no reason for being.
I think it's important to distinguish between unions as they are not all created equal. Some unions, especially on the trade side, truly are champions of their rank and file while others have become a captured rubber stamp for a political party regardless of their members' desires or interests.
I wouldn't lionize trade unions or any unions. Almost all unions are self-interested, fighting for their own workers over any greater cross-union solidarity. I sense from your statement you want unions to be more "bipartisan" but that's not really possible. It's not the 1950s. The Republican Party, as currently constructed, is virulently anti-labor. Most unions have no choice but to support Democrats. The GOP might undergo, through senators like JD Vance, a more union-friendly evolution, but that's years and years away. Vance, for example, won't support the PRO Act. Trump got union support on cultural grounds but he is, in practice, very anti-union. Joe Biden has been the most pro-union president in at least 40 years (not saying much, but it's a fact) so when someone like UAW endorses him, there's a lot of logic to it.
Thanks Ross for bringing up the PRO act. I've read a summary of it. It seems like a reasonable and good step in restoring balance between workers and employers. I came across a lot of objections from right wing organizations. Do you think there are any downsides to the legislation?
There are three reasons corporate profit margins are near historical highs: lower taxes, lower interest rates locked in on a lot of corporate debt, bit mostly wages as a % of revenues have dropped. This is a graph I just created indexing 1970 as 100, comparing profit margins to compensation.
I'd have to study the PRO Act more - I think you are right ideally *everything* gets done federally because then you have less of the state vs. state competition, the race to the bottom, the sort of stuff you don't see in European countries. I don't see downsides for workers and I think, as federal legislation, it would solve some of the problems of anti-union states being pitted against pro-union states. From a business standpoint, corporations may hate it, but my sense is unions will cost them far less than they think. There's this almost lizard-brain hatred of unions, when in reality, for the average company, it'll just mean wages that are a bit higher and you have more stability in the workforce. CEOs really don't want to be *made* to do anything (you hear a lot of this, "I'm a good boss, we don't need labor here!") but you really do need laws and CBA's to codify benefits, conduct, etc.
I'm in UAW 7092 since I'm an NYU adjunct. I definitely get more money being in a union. But it's not like NYU is going broke with its adjuncts unionized under UAW. Same would be true for Target, Walmart, Amazon. They can maintain their business models and stay rich while paying your median worker a bit more money and guaranteeing them health benefits, vacation days. (The greater solution is single-payer/universal healthcare, because then you take the burden of the health plan off the business and put it onto the government.)
But isn't capitalism the root of our legislation problem?
As to automation, or, the more pressing AI movement, we can trace the people vs. machine conflict back to the Industrial Revolution. The issue here is we are blowing up the conflict these revolutions bring while (maybe intentionally?) ignoring the fact that we, human beings, are in control of what we develop and how we use technological advancements as tools for humanity instead of for personal gains. That is not a legislation problem, is it? I am not advocating for any ism as a solution, as I don't think there is a perfect solution.
I don't know enough about AI to have an opinion as to how it ought to be regulated or if it can.
In a way, you're right that unfettered capitalism has led to capture of the legislature by special interests. That said, it takes one farsighted leader with a majority in both houses of Congress to enact laws that can have far reaching consequences. If you consider the laws passed by LBJ or FDR––social security, Medicaid, and medicare––they were revolutionary for their time and had far reaching consequences. Or Obamacare to a lesser extent in terms of how revolutionary it was.
So, I maintain hope for the next set of evolutionary laws that could retain but tame capitalism.
(I usually have nothing to offer, but here’s what came to mind…)
I have seen the poor be noble and the rich be noble. I have seen the poor be vicious and the rich be heartless. I have seen the poor be filthy and clean. Same for the rich. I can work and save money and I can waste money on distractions and entertainment.
There are all kinds of poverty and all kinds of wealth.
There are many ways to remain poor, but some of the most wealthy people who ever lived still wished for something more beyond materials, and an itinerant preacher influenced and continues to influence more people than anyone. As for me - one who has two part-time jobs and always worries about money - I am content knowing what Jesus meant when he spoke of one finding treasure in a field. There is treasure for the poor.
Perhaps you are talking only about materialism, as it seems to suit some personal agenda, but the nation is divided in many ways, not just in terms of wealth. I'll stop here. Do not expect another response from me. Have a good day.
Mr. Donnelly, of course it can, and it does. Money has always done pretty much what it wanted - and is never satisfied. I’m not sure what the ‘all are welcome’ part of your reply is about (the border?), but my comment expressed an appeal to a standard outside of and above our material experience; one that teaches all men to look after one another. Policies won’t change much if the people remain the same.
Thanks. I took your comment as meaning material conditions. Of course we can all help each other spiritually. That doesn't cost anything : )
As for All Are Welcome Here, these are yard signs that are all over the affluent neighborhoods in my city. And the more affluent, the more you see them. Is this a local thing? Don't they have these where you are?
I have never seen one. Probably won’t. I have no idea what context that is in, but I suppose those folks are not housing any illegal border crosser. Or any legal border crosser. It is easy to take a stance and put up a sign. It is not easy to give other people your shirt, coat, or money. This is where the life of Christ is so instructive. Of course, if one believes we are just cosmic burps, none of it matters.
Yes I know those signs. Haha. I once met a couple, no kids, who lived in a 7000 sq ft house with an empty guest house on Mercer Island (pricey area). They were very happy to have US open borders and tent encampments in my neighborhood but not theirs.
This essay sent me over to the story on Adele Waldman, whose novel sounds irresistible. How many authors with a young child would work the “roach” shift at Target to enlarge their understanding of the times, the workplace and the human condition? Waldman’s mission, and her commitment to it, intrigue me as much as the book itself. She revitalized her career be entering another world and learning its ways. Good for her. And for readers.
This is so interesting. I really appreciate your candor.
There are so many circumstances that can make us unable to truly understand the lives of those around us. As you said, the statement that you are isolated from the experience of most of your fellow Americans is true. I sometimes receive similar criticism, not because of an economic divide, but because as an expat my life experience is so completely dissimilar to that of the people in my home nations. I live in countries where my kids go to international schools in order to maintain some consistency in language and curriculum, where employing domestic staff is a condition of our visas, where we don't always know the price of a pint of milk because we're paying in a foreign currency. So it's true that I don't completely understand the daily hardships that my friends and family in Australia and the UK are experiencing.
But what people can know of me is that I try to write about topics with which I AM familiar, and with recognition of my own privilege/outsider status. All we can do is trust in our own kindness, humanity and curiosity. I make no bones about the fact that my views are all very much as seen through a blurry expat bubble... In truth we can all only see the world through our own very specific lens.
I don’t think the average American experiences food insecurity, has no health insurance, or lives in fear. That’s a small, but very needy and often dysfunctional proportion of the population, 10-40% depending on the state, I reckon.
But the average American who has gotten over those hurdles still experiences a great deal of stress and precarity, especially if they live in high cost of living areas. The average American has no connections to help them get ahead in life. The average American doesn’t have the luxury of turning down one job offer in hopes of a better one. The average American depends on social security because it is well nigh impossible on their income to save a material sum for the future. The average American has insurance but is underinsured. The average American that owns their home can’t afford to have it repaired. The average American who doesn’t can’t afford to buy one now, even if mortgage costs are less than rent, because of the upfront cost. The average American is afraid of losing their job, and the cost to upskill is high and the future is not promised even if one does so.
Roth decided to learn about the glove business in the writing of “American Pastoral” after reading John Updike’s “Rabbit is Rich”, which contained a precisely observed description of running a car dealership. (Updike was considered one of the giants of American letters fifty years ago; does anyone read him anymore? I wonder whether any Updike novel is assigned in schools.)
Interesting. I stopped reading him years ago because he struck me as all style. His writing didn’t blow any mental windows open. The writerly effects were no substitute for what I hope to find as a reader.
I disagree. I think he has a distinctive voice and beautiful command of the language. As for substance, his insights into marriage and the suburban life of the time were and are fascinating. One problem is he had a lot of output, much of it not good quality -- for example, Rabbit Run and Rabbit is Rich are both brilliant, but Rabbit Redux, between them, is embarrassing.
Someone once said that you will know within a few years of an author’s death whether their work will be widely read into the future. In that respect it’s looking a lot better for Roth than for Updike. (Roth considered Updike his main competition in the 60s, per the Bailey bio.)
I heard Chris Anderson (TED creator) talking about how he relates to his wealth. He said there’s some religious guidance he recommends following. Judaism and Christianity have a tradition of tithing—give 10% of your income away each year (ideally that’s pre-tax) income. Islam says give away 2.5% of your net worth each year. These traditions also say “don’t give it all away.” Anderson said that by following this guidance, he doesn’t feel guilty for not giving more. He also said that if the highly affluent of the world followed this guidance, we’d be able to solve many if not most of our biggest problems.
America is the most giving and it would be wonderful if everyone did their part. But a lot of philanthropy goes to institutions that don't address the wealth and income gaps. So it's not a substitute for a more robust social safety net. I'm all for giving to institutions like hospitals, universities, and the arts. It all does a lot of good.
But think about this: we're already the most generous country, but we have close to the widest wealth gap among our peers. Philanthropy is not a substitute for government.
This works well : https://www.givedirectly.org/about/ GiveDirectly is a nonprofit that lets donors send money directly to the world’s poorest households. In doing so, it aims to accelerate the end of extreme poverty globally.
We are the most giving because of the lack of a social safety net, I’d argue. And let’s not forget massive tax incentives. Would that be the case if people were properly provided for?
I never understood why the debate gets framed as big(ger) government vs small(er) government.
I want efficient government. That is, I want every dollar of tax to return a dollar of value. And I want this whether government is big or small. Framing the issue as big vs small seems to assume that government is EITHER good at returning value to citizens or bad at returning value to citizens. But the truth is that government is SOMETIMES good at this and sometimes less good. Framing the conversation as big vs. small obscures the central issue.
So agree with you on this. And tying your point back to the overall discussion I think this is where capitalism can do a better job by tying objectives to concrete outcomes. For instance, as a thought experiment, what would happen if Congress were given bonuses tied to the amount of taxes the government brought in each year?
Increasing taxes on affluent folks (like David and me) is exactly the answer.
Philanthropy is great, but I'd **much** rather our elected representatives decide how to spend our collective wealth (as represented by taxes) than have our safety net depend on the whims of the wealthy.
I much prefer cash transfers, such as the child tax credit, that do not require large government bureaucracies over programs that aim to control the behavior of the people receiving help, which do require large intrusive bureaucracies.
What about the wealthy business owners? They will simply pass along the higher taxes to the consumer.
I don’t feel represented by most politicians and would rather the individual decide where his hard earned dollars should be spent. BTW it won’t be the super wealthy who are taxed. They donate too much to politicians. Good on you and David willing to be in a higher tax bracket.
There will likely be an effective tax increase when many of the tax breaks for the wealthy go away after 12/31/25. The 2017 tax bill, which I benefitted from, was a con job. Almost all the tax savings went to the very wealthy. So, that's an example of precisely what you wrote.
I'd like to believer, however, that tax rate increases and a permanent expanded Child Tax Credit, for example, could go hand in hand if we had the right leaders. I'm still optimistic that we can get there.
Good morning David and Kudos to you for this on dealing with your personal wealth and privilege: "It’s an uncomfortable question, and I’m grappling with it." My response may beg for a longer conversation sometime and if you're open for that, let me know and we'll figure out a time and day.
I did not grow up wealthy and privileged and that's another story for another time. I did grow up with loving, caring parents who worked hard to make sure I had opportunities that they did not. Thus I was well-educated and privileged in many ways. You may recall that I was inspired by your donating any subscriptions or contributions here on Substack to Robin Hood and I am still planning to do the same as soon as I choose the charity among my favorite ones. That's where your $80 pledge will go.
I applaud you for being honest, open and authentic and given your situation, not everyone will understand or appreciate your status. There are many ways to give back for all that has been given to us from having a family foundation that supports chosen non-profit projects to just contributing different amounts annually There is also the gift of self and time, via a volunteer position. Scott Peck of "The Road Less Traveled" fame also wrote a less popular book, "What Return Can I Make?" I talked to Scott before he died and that is also another story.
Suffice to say here that we too are in a privileged economic position as are others in our extended family. How each of us deals with our personal wealth is a matter of our beliefs and values and about making sure we are taken care of in our later years (I am 87, my wife is 76) and that our kids don't have to worry about that. They and their children have their own lives and while we adore them and they us, we won't end up living together. By the way, most of them also had the privilege of the private school world, one that I know extremely well by virtue of having spent years working in that environment, albeit in a leadership position. Both our families also left us with more than enough money than we expected which contributed to our life style and comfort immeasurably. Not surprising that those who do not have enough resent those of us who have more than enough. Yes, that's partly a distribution problem but it goes far deeper than that.
As for American Capitalism, there are plenty of signs it is on the decline and I am trying to finish up a book that addresses that. It is called "Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism" written by two Princeton economists. All the best to you as you work, write, and come to terms with yourself in your continuing exploration and discoveries.
I did not grow up with wealth, and there were many times in my childhood when I watched my parents struggle to make finances work at the end of the month. I won't go into details, but this experience taught me much, including how to be a self-starter, how to manage my time well, the value of hard work, that nothing comes without a price or sacrifice, that details and fine print matter, etc. These lessons endowed me with skills that have served me well so far in my life, and have enabled me to establish a level of comfort I did not have growing up. For that I am grateful. My child is fortunate that she is not growing up with the same constraints I had growing up, but I hope to endow her with the same lessons and values through other ways and experiences. My motivation is my belief that it is more important to endow her with skills than to focus on leaving her with material wealth (“Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime").
I love your comment. I have a very similar childhood experience. Now our children are growing in a completely different place. I do believe the key is to give them critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, high self-esteem, and grit. My hope is these qualities help them be prepared for whatever life will bring.
David, your candor about your privilege is what gives your writing so much credibility, and I really appreciate the way you question yourself. I'm a strong believer in being authentic in personal essays or any form of narrative nonfiction. In my current life, I'm also quite privileged, although I didn't start out there. I do think experience with financial anxieties and fears — most recently in a scramble to help my failing parents — provides a gut-level sense of the struggle. Yet poverty isn't necessarily ennobling; one of the worst things about it is the way it limits the horizon of what's possible.
Like others here, I'd point to capitalism as a system that keeps workers in their place, and I'm not so sanguine about business interests (although I do love novels about business, and I very much want to read the Waldman book). Capitalism also limits the horizon for everybody, as if all that matters is self-interest and economic success. That's why asking uncomfortable questions, whether you're rich or poor, has an impact. P.S. I'm glad you haven't tried to massage your own story by including the requisite trauma narrative to excuse your wealth :-)
Thanks Martha. I believe a lot of the imbalance has to do with our tax system, both personal and corporate. I'm not sanguine about businesses veering from their profit motive. And I don't think individual philanthropy is a satisfactory answer either, although within the current system vital for filling in a portion of the holes.
So, legislation really seems to be the answer. But first we need to get through 2024!
Sorry for a lack of clarity on my part: I think the profit motive is a fine thing, too, and I agree that businesses should focus there. Instead of “business interests,” I should have said the perspective of too many entrepreneurs, who justify what they’re doing as some sort of faux version of social responsibility - we’re not just getting rich, we’re changing the world! Meanwhile, they turn a blind eye to everything from lack of health care benefits for employees to implementing automation (or AI) that will put those employees out of work.
I don’t think individual philanthropy is the answer to solving all of society’s problems. I do think it is an answer to how to manage the complicated feelings of the unfairness of having more than enough in a world where many don’t have enough.
Nobody benefits from a lingering guilt that doesn’t turn itself into action. The trick is to figure out the proper action, take that action, and let go of the guilt.
Writing what you know is a powerful way to learn what you are blind to. Your commitment to honesty let’s your readers know that they can feel comfortable being honest with you too, and pointing out where they don’t feel seen in your experiences. If some choose to personally attack you for sharing your truth, well then that’s their work to do.
Keep tuning into where you’re finding discomfort in what you discover, and just be curious. Asking questions is the path.
Denmark has harsh immigration policies and an unemployment rate of 2.6 percent. We have open borders and have given billions to Ukraine. Our government puts criminals and illegals before our own citizens. Denmark doesn’t do this. Just saying.
G-7 countries are similar.
Meanwhile, our health care system is broken but I wouldn’t want to get cancer in Canada, Italy, the UK. Nationalized health care is not the answer.
Have you read Hillybilly Elegies or Educated? Fantastic memoirs of people who were able to pull themselves out of the circumstances they were born into.
I have read Hillbilly Elegies, but not Educated. My friend Wes Moore, now Governor of Maryland, is an example of someone who overcame many obstacles to become a great success. But he acknowledges and worries about being used as an example of "if he can do it, anyone can." His book, The Other Wes Moore is an object lesson about the many contingencies that led him to break out, while the Other Wes Moore came close but wound up in prison.
I don't want to nationalize healthcare, but I do think we could and should help people pay for adequate healthcare.
I'm curious about your comments here and earlier regarding your reluctance to embrace "Medicare for all" or a national healthcare system. I would like to separate healthcare from employment. I'd also like to see our country learn from models that have worked instead of persisting with a for-profit model that does not work for most and props up insurers and other middlemen at the expense of providers and patients. I'm open to how we get there. When you say "help people pay for adequate healthcare" -- are you thinking along the lines of cash payments or tax policies?
I don't feel qualified to be so specific about health care policy. I'd like the result to be healthcare available to everyone and not dependent on having a job. Whether that's Medicare for all or some sort of hybrid system, I'm unsure. Germany and other countries have hybrid models.
I know that what we have now is unfair and needs to evolve. If we need higher taxes to pay for it, then so be it.
I guess I have a knee-jerk reaction to the world "nationalized." Maybe we'll get there some day, but when I hear that word I think of things moving too fast and things breaking and unintended consequences.
We are born to this or that circumstance by chance. Take two children, one born to poverty and one to wealth, and they are equal human beings of equal human and spiritual worth. There is no reason for either to feel guilty about the world into which they were born, as it was not of their choice. One may have certain advantages over the other (and not all the advantages go to the child of wealth), but neither is to blame for the circumstances of their life. No one can make me feel guilty, for example, over being white or having an Ivy League degree. Such guilt will not rest on my shoulders.
I cannot, and will not try to, argue the 2.1 v .7% position. However, I do not think it is all about politics, either. A great deal of it has to do with values. Now, I know people are motivated by hope of reward or fear of loss, but once our needs are met, it is a matter of values as to how much MORE we need. If a business earns an 8% return this year, why must it earn more next year? Why can't it choose, as a matter of values, to put everything over the 8% into a pot to be distributed to the employees? Now, values like that cannot be legislated but can they not be cited as virtuous, possibly encouraging others to do the same? Can such values be taught and discussed more widely? Businesses stand on the shoulders of roaches. Beyond that figurative 8%, why not give them more? Having never been wealthy in the usual materials sense, I can only wonder about this question. Is there ever a time when one has enough? If not, why the hell not?
David, it is clear that you do share your time and money significantly. I see no reason for you to feel guilty. Fortunate? You bet. Guilty? You were born to certain circumstances, neither of your choosing nor your doing but rather simply good luck. Can you use your position to help others even more, either by doing directly or by encouraging others? I can't answer that for you, but I see reason for gratitude, not guilt.
I did not comment over the last few weeks because I do not relate to your wealth, but it's your space and I do respect the authenticity including the confession that some of it weighs on your shoulders.
Thanks Josh. Having been inside many boardrooms, I just don't think those values can be inculcated into most corporations. There are some notable exceptions, but they tend to be private, not public businesses. It may have been done ion art for publicity, but I'm still impressed with Taylor Swift's very generous bonuses to her roadies and her other workers on her tour.
Still wrestling with the question of guilt. And I know you love that Hillel quote which speaks to a balance between the extremes of being only for yourself and of not being for yourself at all. He sums it all up with very few words!
Feel fortunate, yes. Feel privileged to live that life, yes. But why guilt, unless they became wealthy by deliberately taking advantage of the less fortunate? I think this concept of guilt is tossed around far too lightly, designed to include many who have no reason to feel guilt, David among them. It is an manipulative ploy.
Again, why is the world the way it is? Because of the wealthy. THEY have the power. THEY make the decisions. It's their world we live in, or at least the world they built. Feelin' guilty yet? : )
I believe you are making a series of assumptions about the world writ large and overlaying it all with your own views. Skipping all that and going to your question: No, not in the least.
This quote is precisely why I enjoy your candor on wealth: “But a novel like Help Wanted transports us to another world, and that gives it the power and magic to convey that information so it resonates and lasts in our memory.” Our culture trains us to never talk about how much or little wealth we have, which discourages many from disclosing stories like yours about NYC private schools, The Breakers, etc. They are stories worth telling and reading, but the risk is high. Please keep taking these risks - I very much enjoy the transports to this world.
I always appreciate your candor about these class issues... oftentimes affluent people are exaggeratedly ginger in a way that is maybe intended to be polite but comes off as condescending -- the equivalent of saying one "went to school in Cambridge" rather than just saying Harvard. The reality is that well-to-do people wield highly disproportionate influence culturally, politically, institutionally, etc. and it does nobody any favors not to delver into their cultural dynamics and presumptions. Your reflections make a real contribution to helping understand an echelon of people that most will seldom meet -- this Substack is anything but clueless.
David, I've recently found your essays which provide much enjoyment. I like your open-minded frankness and thinking. There is also a modicum of symmetry which I find intriguing.
I'm a 62 year old living in Notting Hill, London. Our stories are different but we find ourselves thinking about wealth and how ashamed or unashamed we might be as a result. My wrestle has been what to do now, beyond instinctive self interest.
This note might have been better served sent directly to your email, apologies for that.
In today's essay you finally mention Denmark and Kirsten Powers recent piece.
My good Danish friend from Aarhus, Denmark's second biggest city which no one knows, opened my eyes many years ago to how supportive government is to their citizens. He was once shipped back to Denmark from France after a skiing accident, everything taken care of by the state.
Danes don't resent paying some of the highest taxes in the world, unlike the UK, where tax avoidance is seen as a worthy profession. Their cars are the most expensive in Europe because of government tax. This behaviour seems a world apart from the current UK government and the prospect of The Donald again in the US?
Thanks Andrew for the comment. We're both 62! I think there are many Americans, if not a majority, who would like to see the country move closer to a European model even if that meant lower economic growth. It does seem at the moment like we might be moving further away rather than closer to that goal.
Thanks Isabel. Greatly appreciate the comment and the encouragement.
Capitalism can't be held blameless. At the periphery of Help Wanted is the company's deep hostility to labor unions. The characters mention several times how they're too afraid to even talk to a union organizer. The major corporations in America - Amazon, Target, Walmart, Starbucks - are virulently anti-union. Through legislation (the PRO Act) they can be forced to treat their workers better. The threat of automation isn't great enough for there to be fears that if workers ask for "too much" they'll all be automated away. Amazon needs human beings in its warehouses. Physical robots can't stock all the Walmart shelves. They can't supervise, they can't respond to customer questions in-store etc. Ultimately, a stronger labor movement and better legislation is needed so these companies start to profit-share and stop exploiting their workforce.
Thanks Ross. Our solutions are similar in that both yours and mine would rely on legislation. I have more confidence that direct cash transfers would have a greater impact and a more certain outcome than any other form of legislation. Cash transfers worked very well during Covid without a lot of friction.
You're right about the current state of automation, but automation technology keeps advancing and I assume that its cost will decline over time.
Cash transfers are fine, but whatever amount you set - let's say $1k a month, as proposed by Yang - amounts to a poverty wage. I like the idea of UBI. But ultimately, what a union can win for you (a middle-class wage, healthcare coverage, a predictable work schedule) can't be found through UBI. It's about the leverage of the worker, and the worker can still extract plenty *particularly* in this economy where stores like the ones depicted in Waldman's novel are actually having a hard time finding workers. The automation threat is a thing, but it's easy to believe that it's a near-future threat vs. something many decades off. Jobs get automated away all the time but there's still a lot of physical human work required to run large corporations.
I'd add, the fact that the minimum wage is now $16 in NYC is directly the result of union action. Most major job protections Americans enjoy today, including the concept (not always followed) of an 8-hour workday, weekends, and paid sick days are the result of labor agitation in the last century. Notable too, the $16 wage, in NYC today, is not very much money - it equates to a bit over $30,000 a year - but it's way, way more than the $12K a year promised under the UBI proposal. Unions can't solve every problem and I'm not naive, but the precarity of the non-unionized worker is a subtle but large theme in Help Wanted.
I'm not against workers having more leverage. But a lot of the legislation about unionization is state by state. Corporations are really good at exploiting state level differences (also in terms of corporate income tax, which is an enormously complicated state revenue issue).
I think a higher minimum wage is good, especially if it could be done at the federal level.
I don't like UBI. I like the Covid-era expanded Child Tax Credit that unfortunately didn't last more than a year or so. I've come around to medicare for all. I also think we should reverse some of the more brutal aspects of the Clinton welfare reforms, which made cash payments so difficult to get.
Of course, all this would require a heavier tax burden, which should hit the wealthy harder but would have to be broad based.
As well, I could write a whole post on the legal tax loopholes. i.e., tax expenditures that exist, which have no reason for being.
I think it's important to distinguish between unions as they are not all created equal. Some unions, especially on the trade side, truly are champions of their rank and file while others have become a captured rubber stamp for a political party regardless of their members' desires or interests.
I wouldn't lionize trade unions or any unions. Almost all unions are self-interested, fighting for their own workers over any greater cross-union solidarity. I sense from your statement you want unions to be more "bipartisan" but that's not really possible. It's not the 1950s. The Republican Party, as currently constructed, is virulently anti-labor. Most unions have no choice but to support Democrats. The GOP might undergo, through senators like JD Vance, a more union-friendly evolution, but that's years and years away. Vance, for example, won't support the PRO Act. Trump got union support on cultural grounds but he is, in practice, very anti-union. Joe Biden has been the most pro-union president in at least 40 years (not saying much, but it's a fact) so when someone like UAW endorses him, there's a lot of logic to it.
Thanks Ross for bringing up the PRO act. I've read a summary of it. It seems like a reasonable and good step in restoring balance between workers and employers. I came across a lot of objections from right wing organizations. Do you think there are any downsides to the legislation?
There are three reasons corporate profit margins are near historical highs: lower taxes, lower interest rates locked in on a lot of corporate debt, bit mostly wages as a % of revenues have dropped. This is a graph I just created indexing 1970 as 100, comparing profit margins to compensation.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.pdf?hires=1&type=application/pdf&bgcolor=%23e1e9f0&chart_type=line&drp=0&fo=open%20sans&graph_bgcolor=%23ffffff&height=450&mode=fred&recession_bars=on&txtcolor=%23444444&ts=12&tts=12&width=1138&nt=0&thu=0&trc=0&show_legend=yes&show_axis_titles=yes&show_tooltip=yes&id=W273RE1A156NBEA,A4002E1A156NBEA&scale=left,left&cosd=1970-01-01,1970-01-01&coed=2022-01-01,2022-01-01&line_color=%234572a7,%23aa4643&link_values=false,false&line_style=solid,solid&mark_type=none,none&mw=3,3&lw=2,2&ost=-99999,-99999&oet=99999,99999&mma=0,0&fml=a,a&fq=Annual,Annual&fam=avg,avg&fgst=lin,lin&fgsnd=2020-02-01,2020-02-01&line_index=1,2&transformation=nbd,nbd&vintage_date=2024-03-16,2024-03-16&revision_date=2024-03-16,2024-03-16&nd=1970-01-01,1970-01-01
I'd have to study the PRO Act more - I think you are right ideally *everything* gets done federally because then you have less of the state vs. state competition, the race to the bottom, the sort of stuff you don't see in European countries. I don't see downsides for workers and I think, as federal legislation, it would solve some of the problems of anti-union states being pitted against pro-union states. From a business standpoint, corporations may hate it, but my sense is unions will cost them far less than they think. There's this almost lizard-brain hatred of unions, when in reality, for the average company, it'll just mean wages that are a bit higher and you have more stability in the workforce. CEOs really don't want to be *made* to do anything (you hear a lot of this, "I'm a good boss, we don't need labor here!") but you really do need laws and CBA's to codify benefits, conduct, etc.
I'm in UAW 7092 since I'm an NYU adjunct. I definitely get more money being in a union. But it's not like NYU is going broke with its adjuncts unionized under UAW. Same would be true for Target, Walmart, Amazon. They can maintain their business models and stay rich while paying your median worker a bit more money and guaranteeing them health benefits, vacation days. (The greater solution is single-payer/universal healthcare, because then you take the burden of the health plan off the business and put it onto the government.)
But isn't capitalism the root of our legislation problem?
As to automation, or, the more pressing AI movement, we can trace the people vs. machine conflict back to the Industrial Revolution. The issue here is we are blowing up the conflict these revolutions bring while (maybe intentionally?) ignoring the fact that we, human beings, are in control of what we develop and how we use technological advancements as tools for humanity instead of for personal gains. That is not a legislation problem, is it? I am not advocating for any ism as a solution, as I don't think there is a perfect solution.
Thanks Yi for your comment.
I don't know enough about AI to have an opinion as to how it ought to be regulated or if it can.
In a way, you're right that unfettered capitalism has led to capture of the legislature by special interests. That said, it takes one farsighted leader with a majority in both houses of Congress to enact laws that can have far reaching consequences. If you consider the laws passed by LBJ or FDR––social security, Medicaid, and medicare––they were revolutionary for their time and had far reaching consequences. Or Obamacare to a lesser extent in terms of how revolutionary it was.
So, I maintain hope for the next set of evolutionary laws that could retain but tame capitalism.
I admire your optimism :)!
(No, I am not a pessimist, at least I don't view myself as one. I am just a very disappointed American.)
(I usually have nothing to offer, but here’s what came to mind…)
I have seen the poor be noble and the rich be noble. I have seen the poor be vicious and the rich be heartless. I have seen the poor be filthy and clean. Same for the rich. I can work and save money and I can waste money on distractions and entertainment.
There are all kinds of poverty and all kinds of wealth.
There are many ways to remain poor, but some of the most wealthy people who ever lived still wished for something more beyond materials, and an itinerant preacher influenced and continues to influence more people than anyone. As for me - one who has two part-time jobs and always worries about money - I am content knowing what Jesus meant when he spoke of one finding treasure in a field. There is treasure for the poor.
Beautiful response. I am envious of the close knit communities of Asians and Latinos in the US— whether rich or poor.
- wealth or poverty does not have to divide us from one another.
Exactly. The US is so horribly divided. I blame both parties and don’t feel represented by our politicians. Sad.
How could it not? The rich aren't going to poor neighborhoods. And as for the poor coming to theirs? All Are Welcome Here my a**.
The nation is divided along lines that are not exclusively about wealth. There really is more to life than materialism.
We are not talking about rich in spirit.
Perhaps you are talking only about materialism, as it seems to suit some personal agenda, but the nation is divided in many ways, not just in terms of wealth. I'll stop here. Do not expect another response from me. Have a good day.
Mr. Donnelly, of course it can, and it does. Money has always done pretty much what it wanted - and is never satisfied. I’m not sure what the ‘all are welcome’ part of your reply is about (the border?), but my comment expressed an appeal to a standard outside of and above our material experience; one that teaches all men to look after one another. Policies won’t change much if the people remain the same.
Thanks. I took your comment as meaning material conditions. Of course we can all help each other spiritually. That doesn't cost anything : )
As for All Are Welcome Here, these are yard signs that are all over the affluent neighborhoods in my city. And the more affluent, the more you see them. Is this a local thing? Don't they have these where you are?
I have never seen one. Probably won’t. I have no idea what context that is in, but I suppose those folks are not housing any illegal border crosser. Or any legal border crosser. It is easy to take a stance and put up a sign. It is not easy to give other people your shirt, coat, or money. This is where the life of Christ is so instructive. Of course, if one believes we are just cosmic burps, none of it matters.
Well stated Seth and God Bless
Yes I know those signs. Haha. I once met a couple, no kids, who lived in a 7000 sq ft house with an empty guest house on Mercer Island (pricey area). They were very happy to have US open borders and tent encampments in my neighborhood but not theirs.
Shameless plug: Subscribe to me, Ms. Stiffel. I cover class issues in our writing, among other things. All in Good Humor, of course : )
Frasier Crane from Cheers: "Sometimes I wish I was a member of an ethnic group... Nah, I hate hugging."
Love this -- quite true. One class marker is no indication of character.
- or destiny.
This essay sent me over to the story on Adele Waldman, whose novel sounds irresistible. How many authors with a young child would work the “roach” shift at Target to enlarge their understanding of the times, the workplace and the human condition? Waldman’s mission, and her commitment to it, intrigue me as much as the book itself. She revitalized her career be entering another world and learning its ways. Good for her. And for readers.
I’m racing to get the book now!
If Waldman needed to take a job to learn about a slice of society it does not bode well. A good writer would hide this.
This is so interesting. I really appreciate your candor.
There are so many circumstances that can make us unable to truly understand the lives of those around us. As you said, the statement that you are isolated from the experience of most of your fellow Americans is true. I sometimes receive similar criticism, not because of an economic divide, but because as an expat my life experience is so completely dissimilar to that of the people in my home nations. I live in countries where my kids go to international schools in order to maintain some consistency in language and curriculum, where employing domestic staff is a condition of our visas, where we don't always know the price of a pint of milk because we're paying in a foreign currency. So it's true that I don't completely understand the daily hardships that my friends and family in Australia and the UK are experiencing.
But what people can know of me is that I try to write about topics with which I AM familiar, and with recognition of my own privilege/outsider status. All we can do is trust in our own kindness, humanity and curiosity. I make no bones about the fact that my views are all very much as seen through a blurry expat bubble... In truth we can all only see the world through our own very specific lens.
Looking forward to reading more of your words.
Thanks Michelle for the comment. That's an interesting lens, that of an expat in the way that it creates a different sort of divide.
I don’t think the average American experiences food insecurity, has no health insurance, or lives in fear. That’s a small, but very needy and often dysfunctional proportion of the population, 10-40% depending on the state, I reckon.
But the average American who has gotten over those hurdles still experiences a great deal of stress and precarity, especially if they live in high cost of living areas. The average American has no connections to help them get ahead in life. The average American doesn’t have the luxury of turning down one job offer in hopes of a better one. The average American depends on social security because it is well nigh impossible on their income to save a material sum for the future. The average American has insurance but is underinsured. The average American that owns their home can’t afford to have it repaired. The average American who doesn’t can’t afford to buy one now, even if mortgage costs are less than rent, because of the upfront cost. The average American is afraid of losing their job, and the cost to upskill is high and the future is not promised even if one does so.
Roth decided to learn about the glove business in the writing of “American Pastoral” after reading John Updike’s “Rabbit is Rich”, which contained a precisely observed description of running a car dealership. (Updike was considered one of the giants of American letters fifty years ago; does anyone read him anymore? I wonder whether any Updike novel is assigned in schools.)
Updike lacked style. Only the stylists make it out of their generation.
Interesting. I stopped reading him years ago because he struck me as all style. His writing didn’t blow any mental windows open. The writerly effects were no substitute for what I hope to find as a reader.
He writes like an extremely able newsman. Or bot : )
Join me Mondays Rona. I cover essential writing issues like humor, style, attitude. All with humor, style, attitude : )
I disagree. I think he has a distinctive voice and beautiful command of the language. As for substance, his insights into marriage and the suburban life of the time were and are fascinating. One problem is he had a lot of output, much of it not good quality -- for example, Rabbit Run and Rabbit is Rich are both brilliant, but Rabbit Redux, between them, is embarrassing.
Very well put.
I read him.
I read him! I wept when he died and explain and quote Updike from _Self-Consciousness in chapter 22 of my memoir here: https://marytabor.substack.com/p/send-in-the-clowns-chapter-22.
Someone once said that you will know within a few years of an author’s death whether their work will be widely read into the future. In that respect it’s looking a lot better for Roth than for Updike. (Roth considered Updike his main competition in the 60s, per the Bailey bio.)
I guess we'll see. I'm also a major Roth fan.
I think I read his Rabbit novels when I was too young to appreciate them
I think his short stories are terrific
I think of Updike as pared with Cheever although there’s an age difference
I heard Chris Anderson (TED creator) talking about how he relates to his wealth. He said there’s some religious guidance he recommends following. Judaism and Christianity have a tradition of tithing—give 10% of your income away each year (ideally that’s pre-tax) income. Islam says give away 2.5% of your net worth each year. These traditions also say “don’t give it all away.” Anderson said that by following this guidance, he doesn’t feel guilty for not giving more. He also said that if the highly affluent of the world followed this guidance, we’d be able to solve many if not most of our biggest problems.
Great points. And— America is the most giving (of charity) in the world.
America is the most giving and it would be wonderful if everyone did their part. But a lot of philanthropy goes to institutions that don't address the wealth and income gaps. So it's not a substitute for a more robust social safety net. I'm all for giving to institutions like hospitals, universities, and the arts. It all does a lot of good.
But think about this: we're already the most generous country, but we have close to the widest wealth gap among our peers. Philanthropy is not a substitute for government.
Absolutely agree. But expanding government and increasing taxes isn’t the answer either.
I suspect we can expand the good the government does without expanding the government, an idea possibly worth considering.
Definitely. Cash transfers have very little bureaucratic leakage.
This works well : https://www.givedirectly.org/about/ GiveDirectly is a nonprofit that lets donors send money directly to the world’s poorest households. In doing so, it aims to accelerate the end of extreme poverty globally.
Neither has to substitute for the other; they are not mutually exclusive. We can do well with both.
We are the most giving because of the lack of a social safety net, I’d argue. And let’s not forget massive tax incentives. Would that be the case if people were properly provided for?
Agreed
I never understood why the debate gets framed as big(ger) government vs small(er) government.
I want efficient government. That is, I want every dollar of tax to return a dollar of value. And I want this whether government is big or small. Framing the issue as big vs small seems to assume that government is EITHER good at returning value to citizens or bad at returning value to citizens. But the truth is that government is SOMETIMES good at this and sometimes less good. Framing the conversation as big vs. small obscures the central issue.
So agree with you on this. And tying your point back to the overall discussion I think this is where capitalism can do a better job by tying objectives to concrete outcomes. For instance, as a thought experiment, what would happen if Congress were given bonuses tied to the amount of taxes the government brought in each year?
Increasing taxes on affluent folks (like David and me) is exactly the answer.
Philanthropy is great, but I'd **much** rather our elected representatives decide how to spend our collective wealth (as represented by taxes) than have our safety net depend on the whims of the wealthy.
I much prefer cash transfers, such as the child tax credit, that do not require large government bureaucracies over programs that aim to control the behavior of the people receiving help, which do require large intrusive bureaucracies.
I agree with Anne. I think we would be a better country if we had a better safety net and, especially, invested more in our children.
What about the wealthy business owners? They will simply pass along the higher taxes to the consumer.
I don’t feel represented by most politicians and would rather the individual decide where his hard earned dollars should be spent. BTW it won’t be the super wealthy who are taxed. They donate too much to politicians. Good on you and David willing to be in a higher tax bracket.
Carissa,
There will likely be an effective tax increase when many of the tax breaks for the wealthy go away after 12/31/25. The 2017 tax bill, which I benefitted from, was a con job. Almost all the tax savings went to the very wealthy. So, that's an example of precisely what you wrote.
I'd like to believer, however, that tax rate increases and a permanent expanded Child Tax Credit, for example, could go hand in hand if we had the right leaders. I'm still optimistic that we can get there.
Good morning David and Kudos to you for this on dealing with your personal wealth and privilege: "It’s an uncomfortable question, and I’m grappling with it." My response may beg for a longer conversation sometime and if you're open for that, let me know and we'll figure out a time and day.
I did not grow up wealthy and privileged and that's another story for another time. I did grow up with loving, caring parents who worked hard to make sure I had opportunities that they did not. Thus I was well-educated and privileged in many ways. You may recall that I was inspired by your donating any subscriptions or contributions here on Substack to Robin Hood and I am still planning to do the same as soon as I choose the charity among my favorite ones. That's where your $80 pledge will go.
I applaud you for being honest, open and authentic and given your situation, not everyone will understand or appreciate your status. There are many ways to give back for all that has been given to us from having a family foundation that supports chosen non-profit projects to just contributing different amounts annually There is also the gift of self and time, via a volunteer position. Scott Peck of "The Road Less Traveled" fame also wrote a less popular book, "What Return Can I Make?" I talked to Scott before he died and that is also another story.
Suffice to say here that we too are in a privileged economic position as are others in our extended family. How each of us deals with our personal wealth is a matter of our beliefs and values and about making sure we are taken care of in our later years (I am 87, my wife is 76) and that our kids don't have to worry about that. They and their children have their own lives and while we adore them and they us, we won't end up living together. By the way, most of them also had the privilege of the private school world, one that I know extremely well by virtue of having spent years working in that environment, albeit in a leadership position. Both our families also left us with more than enough money than we expected which contributed to our life style and comfort immeasurably. Not surprising that those who do not have enough resent those of us who have more than enough. Yes, that's partly a distribution problem but it goes far deeper than that.
As for American Capitalism, there are plenty of signs it is on the decline and I am trying to finish up a book that addresses that. It is called "Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism" written by two Princeton economists. All the best to you as you work, write, and come to terms with yourself in your continuing exploration and discoveries.
Gary, thanks for your comment and for sharing your story.
I'd welcome the opportunity to chat. Feel free to email me at robertsdavidn@gmail.com.
I haven't read the book but have read articles written by Angus Deaton.
I did not grow up with wealth, and there were many times in my childhood when I watched my parents struggle to make finances work at the end of the month. I won't go into details, but this experience taught me much, including how to be a self-starter, how to manage my time well, the value of hard work, that nothing comes without a price or sacrifice, that details and fine print matter, etc. These lessons endowed me with skills that have served me well so far in my life, and have enabled me to establish a level of comfort I did not have growing up. For that I am grateful. My child is fortunate that she is not growing up with the same constraints I had growing up, but I hope to endow her with the same lessons and values through other ways and experiences. My motivation is my belief that it is more important to endow her with skills than to focus on leaving her with material wealth (“Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime").
Elaine, thanks for your comment.
I agree with your approach and admire how intentional you are about being a parent.
Elaine,
I love your comment. I have a very similar childhood experience. Now our children are growing in a completely different place. I do believe the key is to give them critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, high self-esteem, and grit. My hope is these qualities help them be prepared for whatever life will bring.
David, your candor about your privilege is what gives your writing so much credibility, and I really appreciate the way you question yourself. I'm a strong believer in being authentic in personal essays or any form of narrative nonfiction. In my current life, I'm also quite privileged, although I didn't start out there. I do think experience with financial anxieties and fears — most recently in a scramble to help my failing parents — provides a gut-level sense of the struggle. Yet poverty isn't necessarily ennobling; one of the worst things about it is the way it limits the horizon of what's possible.
Like others here, I'd point to capitalism as a system that keeps workers in their place, and I'm not so sanguine about business interests (although I do love novels about business, and I very much want to read the Waldman book). Capitalism also limits the horizon for everybody, as if all that matters is self-interest and economic success. That's why asking uncomfortable questions, whether you're rich or poor, has an impact. P.S. I'm glad you haven't tried to massage your own story by including the requisite trauma narrative to excuse your wealth :-)
Thanks Martha. I believe a lot of the imbalance has to do with our tax system, both personal and corporate. I'm not sanguine about businesses veering from their profit motive. And I don't think individual philanthropy is a satisfactory answer either, although within the current system vital for filling in a portion of the holes.
So, legislation really seems to be the answer. But first we need to get through 2024!
Sorry for a lack of clarity on my part: I think the profit motive is a fine thing, too, and I agree that businesses should focus there. Instead of “business interests,” I should have said the perspective of too many entrepreneurs, who justify what they’re doing as some sort of faux version of social responsibility - we’re not just getting rich, we’re changing the world! Meanwhile, they turn a blind eye to everything from lack of health care benefits for employees to implementing automation (or AI) that will put those employees out of work.
yes, i agree the virtue signaling is gross!
I don’t think individual philanthropy is the answer to solving all of society’s problems. I do think it is an answer to how to manage the complicated feelings of the unfairness of having more than enough in a world where many don’t have enough.
Nobody benefits from a lingering guilt that doesn’t turn itself into action. The trick is to figure out the proper action, take that action, and let go of the guilt.
Good advice, Dan. I appreciate your comments.
Beautifully written as always David.
Writing what you know is a powerful way to learn what you are blind to. Your commitment to honesty let’s your readers know that they can feel comfortable being honest with you too, and pointing out where they don’t feel seen in your experiences. If some choose to personally attack you for sharing your truth, well then that’s their work to do.
Keep tuning into where you’re finding discomfort in what you discover, and just be curious. Asking questions is the path.
Thanks David for the encouragement. I really appreciate it.
Denmark has harsh immigration policies and an unemployment rate of 2.6 percent. We have open borders and have given billions to Ukraine. Our government puts criminals and illegals before our own citizens. Denmark doesn’t do this. Just saying.
G-7 countries are similar.
Meanwhile, our health care system is broken but I wouldn’t want to get cancer in Canada, Italy, the UK. Nationalized health care is not the answer.
Have you read Hillybilly Elegies or Educated? Fantastic memoirs of people who were able to pull themselves out of the circumstances they were born into.
I have read Hillbilly Elegies, but not Educated. My friend Wes Moore, now Governor of Maryland, is an example of someone who overcame many obstacles to become a great success. But he acknowledges and worries about being used as an example of "if he can do it, anyone can." His book, The Other Wes Moore is an object lesson about the many contingencies that led him to break out, while the Other Wes Moore came close but wound up in prison.
I don't want to nationalize healthcare, but I do think we could and should help people pay for adequate healthcare.
I'm curious about your comments here and earlier regarding your reluctance to embrace "Medicare for all" or a national healthcare system. I would like to separate healthcare from employment. I'd also like to see our country learn from models that have worked instead of persisting with a for-profit model that does not work for most and props up insurers and other middlemen at the expense of providers and patients. I'm open to how we get there. When you say "help people pay for adequate healthcare" -- are you thinking along the lines of cash payments or tax policies?
I don't feel qualified to be so specific about health care policy. I'd like the result to be healthcare available to everyone and not dependent on having a job. Whether that's Medicare for all or some sort of hybrid system, I'm unsure. Germany and other countries have hybrid models.
I know that what we have now is unfair and needs to evolve. If we need higher taxes to pay for it, then so be it.
I guess I have a knee-jerk reaction to the world "nationalized." Maybe we'll get there some day, but when I hear that word I think of things moving too fast and things breaking and unintended consequences.
We are born to this or that circumstance by chance. Take two children, one born to poverty and one to wealth, and they are equal human beings of equal human and spiritual worth. There is no reason for either to feel guilty about the world into which they were born, as it was not of their choice. One may have certain advantages over the other (and not all the advantages go to the child of wealth), but neither is to blame for the circumstances of their life. No one can make me feel guilty, for example, over being white or having an Ivy League degree. Such guilt will not rest on my shoulders.
I cannot, and will not try to, argue the 2.1 v .7% position. However, I do not think it is all about politics, either. A great deal of it has to do with values. Now, I know people are motivated by hope of reward or fear of loss, but once our needs are met, it is a matter of values as to how much MORE we need. If a business earns an 8% return this year, why must it earn more next year? Why can't it choose, as a matter of values, to put everything over the 8% into a pot to be distributed to the employees? Now, values like that cannot be legislated but can they not be cited as virtuous, possibly encouraging others to do the same? Can such values be taught and discussed more widely? Businesses stand on the shoulders of roaches. Beyond that figurative 8%, why not give them more? Having never been wealthy in the usual materials sense, I can only wonder about this question. Is there ever a time when one has enough? If not, why the hell not?
David, it is clear that you do share your time and money significantly. I see no reason for you to feel guilty. Fortunate? You bet. Guilty? You were born to certain circumstances, neither of your choosing nor your doing but rather simply good luck. Can you use your position to help others even more, either by doing directly or by encouraging others? I can't answer that for you, but I see reason for gratitude, not guilt.
I did not comment over the last few weeks because I do not relate to your wealth, but it's your space and I do respect the authenticity including the confession that some of it weighs on your shoulders.
Thanks Josh. Having been inside many boardrooms, I just don't think those values can be inculcated into most corporations. There are some notable exceptions, but they tend to be private, not public businesses. It may have been done ion art for publicity, but I'm still impressed with Taylor Swift's very generous bonuses to her roadies and her other workers on her tour.
Still wrestling with the question of guilt. And I know you love that Hillel quote which speaks to a balance between the extremes of being only for yourself and of not being for yourself at all. He sums it all up with very few words!
If the rich feel guilty they oughtta (not you of course, David : ) The world isn't the way it is because of the poor
Feel fortunate, yes. Feel privileged to live that life, yes. But why guilt, unless they became wealthy by deliberately taking advantage of the less fortunate? I think this concept of guilt is tossed around far too lightly, designed to include many who have no reason to feel guilt, David among them. It is an manipulative ploy.
Again, why is the world the way it is? Because of the wealthy. THEY have the power. THEY make the decisions. It's their world we live in, or at least the world they built. Feelin' guilty yet? : )
I believe you are making a series of assumptions about the world writ large and overlaying it all with your own views. Skipping all that and going to your question: No, not in the least.
Guilt is a reaction to unfairness. Some feel guilt. Others not.
I did not have Hillel in mind, but I know the quote. My father wrote this book: https://a.co/d/8GhkNo4
This quote is precisely why I enjoy your candor on wealth: “But a novel like Help Wanted transports us to another world, and that gives it the power and magic to convey that information so it resonates and lasts in our memory.” Our culture trains us to never talk about how much or little wealth we have, which discourages many from disclosing stories like yours about NYC private schools, The Breakers, etc. They are stories worth telling and reading, but the risk is high. Please keep taking these risks - I very much enjoy the transports to this world.
Thanks Lindsay. I will!
I always appreciate your candor about these class issues... oftentimes affluent people are exaggeratedly ginger in a way that is maybe intended to be polite but comes off as condescending -- the equivalent of saying one "went to school in Cambridge" rather than just saying Harvard. The reality is that well-to-do people wield highly disproportionate influence culturally, politically, institutionally, etc. and it does nobody any favors not to delver into their cultural dynamics and presumptions. Your reflections make a real contribution to helping understand an echelon of people that most will seldom meet -- this Substack is anything but clueless.
Thanks I.E.!
David, I've recently found your essays which provide much enjoyment. I like your open-minded frankness and thinking. There is also a modicum of symmetry which I find intriguing.
I'm a 62 year old living in Notting Hill, London. Our stories are different but we find ourselves thinking about wealth and how ashamed or unashamed we might be as a result. My wrestle has been what to do now, beyond instinctive self interest.
This note might have been better served sent directly to your email, apologies for that.
In today's essay you finally mention Denmark and Kirsten Powers recent piece.
My good Danish friend from Aarhus, Denmark's second biggest city which no one knows, opened my eyes many years ago to how supportive government is to their citizens. He was once shipped back to Denmark from France after a skiing accident, everything taken care of by the state.
Danes don't resent paying some of the highest taxes in the world, unlike the UK, where tax avoidance is seen as a worthy profession. Their cars are the most expensive in Europe because of government tax. This behaviour seems a world apart from the current UK government and the prospect of The Donald again in the US?
Thanks Andrew for the comment. We're both 62! I think there are many Americans, if not a majority, who would like to see the country move closer to a European model even if that meant lower economic growth. It does seem at the moment like we might be moving further away rather than closer to that goal.