Are the rich more virtuous than the poor?

[Bubba_Switzler]

And that’s perfectly legitimate. Unemployment benefits are earned benefits from a system that they paid into while they were working.

Again, your criteria seems to be that whatever these people do with their own resources is fine and dandy (let’s overlook for the moment the fact that unemployment insurance is a government run program that is not designed to balance costs and benefits). I don’t recall you making any sort of similar argument that the rich should enjoy their wealth.

And, again, my point is not to defend a lack of charity by the rich, or anyone, but to call you on your double standard.

 

[Lujack]

Again, your criteria seems to be that whatever these people do with their own resources is fine and dandy (let’s overlook for the moment the fact that unemployment insurance is a government run program that is not designed to balance costs and benefits). I don’t recall you making any sort of similar argument that the rich should enjoy their wealth.

And, again, my point is not to defend a lack of charity by the rich, or anyone, but to call you on your double standard.

You aren’t successfully calling me on a double standard. It would certainly be preferable if these people would spend all their time working for a charitable organization, but I’ll make two arguments:

1. “Funemployment” is not a permanent condition. These are people on an extended vacation, effectively (the Summer of George). Unless they have some fantastic source of untapped wealth, severance packages/unemployment benefits/money saved isn’t going to last them more than two or three years at the extreme maximum. They might still be unemployed, but the Mongolian camping trips will be gone.
2. I’d argue that society as a whole has a duty to do what it can for the poor. I don’t have any issue with the rich enjoying their wealth, and I never had. Having a duty to do you what you can for the poor doesn’t mean never spending anything on yourself.
3. I’ve never made an argument that the rich shouldn’t enjoy their wealth. Go back and try and find a quote from me on that. I’ve posted a lot about why its difficult to be poor, though.

 

[graciew]

If there was a shortage of applicants, if business couldn’t hire enough workers, then we’d have an issue and you’d be right. However, the studies on this are pretty clear-people are unemployed because there aren’t enough jobs, not because they are rejecting jobs. Now I’m sure its easy to come up with an individual case of a person who has rejected a job, but this on the whole.

Lujack,I was trying to see if we were all talking about the same group of people.I was not expressing my opinion yet.Thanks anyway.

 

[graciew]

If there was a shortage of applicants, if business couldn’t hire enough workers, then we’d have an issue and you’d be right. However, the studies on this are pretty clear-people are unemployed because there aren’t enough jobs, not because they are rejecting jobs. Now I’m sure its easy to come up with an individual case of a person who has rejected a job, but this on the whole.

I was only trying to see if we were talking about the same issue,not giving an opinion.Anyway,it´s ok.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You aren’t successfully calling me on a double standard. It would certainly be preferable if these people would spend all their time working for a charitable organization…

While I am not begrudging anyone their vacation, it sounds like you have come around to agreeing with me that, in the main, people capable of contributing to society ought to be contributing to society.

 

[Lujack]

While I am not begrudging anyone their vacation, it sounds like you have come around to agreeing with me that, in the main, people capable of contributing to society ought to be contributing to society.

I’ve never “come around” to anything. I’ve always believed that, and I’d appreciate if you didn’t claim credit for me believing things I’ve believed for a very long time.

 

[graciew]

But my point in throwing funemployment into the discussion was simply to refute the claim that some have put forward that our charitable duties require thoughtless giving to the demands of others.

Here I will agree with you,but will narrow it down to one example I have personally witnessed…When several neighbours in one neighbourhood are receiving benefits,and for some reason some are receiving them dishonestly while others who need assitance do not,there is much friction among them and their relationships are resented as it is their sense of fairness.
So all I am saying to begin with,is that thoughtful charity should take into account the effects of what´s unfair upon the poor neighbours relationships.

 

[graciew]

QUOTE=Bubba Switzler;9124288]
Now returning to the main issue, if we accept Charles Murray’s observations, and the list of three “worldy” virtues that I had listed several times in this thread (stay in school, get and keep a job, don’t have children until you are married) the question that is raised is whether and how to take such an observation into consideration when considering prudential charity.

What does considering prudential charity mean for you here?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What does considering prudential charity mean for you here?

Whether or not you agree with my understanding of prudential charity, I hope that you will contiune to think about what prudential charity means because it is important. Both prudence and charity are Catholic virtues and prudence comes before charity. I will answer what it means to me, here, but hopefully I will at least convince you that it is important to consider.

Let us begin with an all to common example. Suppose you walk out of a building and you encounter a scruffy homeless man asking for money. Do you give? Those who study these situations have found that, in all too many, if not most cases, the money is used for booze. No matter how much money you give this person, whether it is a few coins or all the cash in your wallet, all you are accomplishing is to support this man’s alcohol consumption.

There was at least one person in this thread who voiced the opinion that we must give the poor whatever they demand of us. Others have voiced a similar opinion more indirectly. I’ve head that sentiment expressed elsewhere referring precisely to panhandlers suggesting that we must be charitable not only in giving but in how we perceive that gift will be used; to imagine that our gift will be ill used is uncharitable, they say.

That is imprudent charity and it has no foundation in Catholic theology. The belief, for example, that God gives us whatever we ask of him if only we have enough faith is a Protestant belief, not a Catholic belief.

In another thread I asked what is our duty to addicts, which I tried to generalize further. After some discussion I offered this and nobody disagreed:

1. Live an exemplary Christian life.
2. Love the sinner (this needs further clarification).
3. Help when perceived need and offered help coincides (i.e. don’t support an addict’s habit but help him into rehab if he asks).
4. Give moral instruction and advice when it comes up naturally, as for example when you are asked why you make the choices that you do.

Now if you are with me this far, we can turn the question of what prudential charity would mean in light of Charles Murray’s research on poverty. But I’ll stop here to see if you’re ready to tackle that.

 

[graciew]

Thanks for answering.Often times we need to define things.So far I can follow what you are saying.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

So let’s look again at Charles Murray and the three get-out-of-poverty correlations. Let us suppose Murray and similar researchers are correct, because if they are wrong then this is pointless. (I have not forgtten that evidence of correlaiton is not evidence of causation. Further research is always welcome but we don’t suspend prudential judgement for lack of certainty.)

So the first question to consider is do we really want to help people get out of poverty? That’s a more complex question than it might at first appear but I think, for most cases, the answer should be “yes.” (There is related question of honoring the dignity of the person receiving charity. Some will say that what I suggest is dishonorable but I would argue the opposite.)

Now I have better things to do than tell the government how to run its welfare programs, though I will always vote for the candidate who is promises the most subsidiary policy. Ditto others’ giving.

But with regard to my own charitable giving, I have a great deal of influence and control. We could spend all day giving moral instruction to each other but if someone comes to me with their hand out I can certainly exercise discretion and attach contingencies to giving.

In the simplest case, I could offer a panhandler to buy him a sandwich. Or I could tell him to clean up the trash in the area for $10. More generally, charitable institutions can exercise such discretion and influence and I can donate to those that better reflect my own convictions in this regard. Soup kitchens can require able-bodied recipients to work around the kitchen.

All of this requires more creativity and effort than mailing checks to poor people. It may be, for example, that such charity gets less money to the poor because some has to go to paying those who manage the program. But that’s just the cost of exercising prudence.

(And, needless to say, giving to religious institutions involves exatly such prudence. I’ve never heard of a Catholic or even Protestant religious institution that didn’t explain exactly what your gift would accomplish.)

None of this is new. It is, rather, largely forgotten.

 

[graciew]

ok.So as I understand it,what you are saying is that the person who receives can somehow return it through some kind of work.
If this is so,and I am following what you are saying,I have one question that I would ask myself. Am I desiring some kind of work in return because I believe it will enhance the person´s dignity or will it ease my mind from this feeling that some people are getting used and becoming lazy and I have something to teach?
In my heart,the purpose of my thoughts and actions is important to me and makes a difference,a big difference.The “what for”.Cause ultimately the first answer comes out of love and respect for our ultimate need( a desire that they feel included,loved,acknoledged ,heard,respected) and the latter comes from a desire to “correct” which puts me in a higher position,which is wrong in my eyes.
And in saying this,I am not judging anyone,just sharing my convictions.
Cause if I think that it is about “them” and “us” separately and not about “we”,I am not going in the right direction.

 

[graciew]

None of this is new. It is, rather, largely forgotten.

What is it particularly that is largely forgotten if you could be more specific? cause you mentioned several issues.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What is it particularly that is largely forgotten if you could be more specific? cause you mentioned several issues.

The idea of the dignitify of work. The Protestant phrase is “idle hands are the devil’s workshop” but the Catholic idea is, roughly, that work is an essential part of our human nature and purpose. Some, like Opus Dei take it even further (sanctifying ordinary work). This is why I objected to your portrayal of the apostles as welfare dependents. It’s one thing to choose not to pursue a paycheck, another thing entirely to choose not to work.

(Remember, for most of human history, charity meant caring for widows and orphans.)

ok.So as I understand it,what you are saying is that the person who receives can somehow return it through some kind of work.

That’s just one example but I think it’s an important and relatively simple one. How hard would it be, realy, to require some form of labor of anyone accepting charity? (Now obviously there are some cases where that is impractical but we can certainly talk about most cases and allow for reasonable exceptions. But even the exceptions are probably rarer than people generally think.) Giving work is, in and of itself, a gift, though not always one that is appreciated.

If this is so,and I am following what you are saying,I have one question that I would ask myself. Am I desiring some kind of work in return because I believe it will enhance the person´s dignity or will it ease my mind from this feeling that some people are getting used and becoming lazy and I have something to teach?

I would say both and more. Conversely, giving to the able-bodied with no strings attached is a very poisonous gift.

In my heart,the purpose of my thoughts and actions is important to me and makes a difference,a big difference.The “what for”.Cause ultimately the first answer comes out of love and respect for our ultimate need( a desire that they feel included,loved,acknoledged ,heard,respected) and the latter comes from a desire to “correct” which puts me in a higher position,which is wrong in my eyes.

I would say that a good place to start is with Opus Dei. Maybe you won’t buy their extreme view of work, but you can at least see how a Catholic institution that values work looks a things.

And in saying this,I am not judging anyone,just sharing my convictions.
Cause if I think that it is about “them” and “us” separately and not about “we”,I am not going in the right direction.

This brings us back to the title of the thread. While I understand the desire for humility, if you take this on you cannot escape the fact that you are stepping into a teaching role. You are presuming that those trapped in poverty have something to learn from you. That is an uncomfortable thought for many.

Now obviously I don’t mean to suggest that we should judge them in the sense of questioning their holiness, I have repeatedly made that distinction starting in the OP.

But consider this: if you know something that the poor don’t and you keep to yourself are you not burying your talents?

 

[graciew]

QUOTE]

I]work

.

(Remember, for most of human history, charity meant caring for widows and orphans.)

It was something different in Jesus

That’s just one example but I think it’s an important and relatively simple one. How hard would it be, realy, to require some form of labor of anyone accepting charity?
Giving work is, in and of itself, a gift, though not always one that is appreciated.

I

There´s many examples in different countries how the Church promotes this possibility,not imposes it.But it has to do with the belief that the person who receives feels he/she is providing for the family through his/her own little work and he feels included,participating and dignified…And if there is one person who was looking for the way out,all the effort is worth it.

This brings us back to the title of the thread. While I understand the desire for humility, if you take this on you cannot escape the fact that you are stepping into a teaching role. You are presuming that those trapped in poverty have something to learn from you. That is an uncomfortable thought for many.

But consider this: if you know something that the poor don’t and you keep to yourself are you not burying your talents?

It may not be a desire for humility,but the result of awareness once you have walked the path and learnt your lesson. I believe in personal encounters,I do not believe in generalizations.
I come from one of those places Murray recommends you do not become like us.(And please,do not stay only in neighbouring countries).There,where I come from,you do not need to send anyone to pick up trash,Bubba,they **live on **trash,opening the plastic bags to find sth to make an honest living with by selling paper,or clean enough? to eat.It is very very painful.

 

[graciew]

QUOTE=Bubba Switzler;9124288]
Now returning to the main issue, if we accept Charles Murray’s observations, and the list of three “worldy” virtues that I had listed several times in this thread (stay in school, get and keep a job, don’t have children until you are married) the question that is raised is whether and how to take such an observation into consideration when considering prudential charity.

I do not think there is any doubt about the “stay at school as long as you can” cause.In fact keeping children and teenagers at school is one of the major benefits anyone can provide for.So protecting the quality of public schools becomes fundamental,I believe.
Is there any doubt that education is the number one priority to avoid poverty?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I do not think there is any doubt about the “stay at school as long as you can” cause.In fact keeping children and teenagers at school is one of the major benefits anyone can provide for.So protecting the quality of public schools becomes fundamental,I believe. Is there any doubt that education is the number one priority to avoid poverty?

All three seem pretty reasonable to me as predictors but none seem trivial for the poorest to accomplish. And it’s not obvious which is more important than the others. Further research and experimentation is needed mainly to determine which are causal and which are more efficiently causual. (It could be, for example, that one is very important but impossible to change.)

“Stay in school” is not simply a problem that is solved by throwing money at quality eduction; it is as much or more a matter of valuing education.

That said, Catholic schools seem to do much better at graduation rates than public schools. That’s where I’d put my money.

 

[graciew]

“Stay in school” is not simply a problem that is solved by throwing money at quality eduction; it is as much or more a matter of valuing education.

That said, Catholic schools seem to do much better at graduation rates than public schools. That’s where I’d put my money.

As long as education is compulsory,cause ultimately it is a right,you will have kids away from crime,children working,and much more.It is investing and trusting in public schools.There you socialize at all levels and it is free.You even have the buses for pick up.
You may not realize it,but it is among the best decisions made in the US.And there is virtually no excuse not to attend.
If there is a lack of vision,and parents do not see whst education means,I have seen it among very wealthy kids moving about from university to university wasting time as well.
For me it is lack of vision mainly(may be of course other factors).
Catholic schools are not that cheap,I guess.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

As long as education is compulsory,cause ultimately it is a right,you will have kids away from crime,children working,and much more.It is investing and trusting in public schools.There you socialize at all levels and it is free.You even have the buses for pick up. You may not realize it,but it is among the best decisions made in the US.And there is virtually no excuse not to attend.

And, yet, graduation rates for the pooerst Americans are absolutely terrible. People disagree why but that is a fact.

If there is a lack of vision,and parents do not see whst education means,I have seen it among very wealthy kids moving from university to university as well.
For me it is lack of vision mainly(may be of course other factors). I went to a Catholic school(many years ago…) but my parents could afford it.They are not that cheap,I guess.

I have much more confidence in Catholic education than public education. Making Catholic education affordable to the poor seems like a worthy goal. One problem is that Catholics, themselves, regard the American poor as generally not worth their attention given that there are far worse problems elsewhere in the world who can be helped more for much less money. It’s hard to argue with that.

 

[graciew]

QUOTE=Bubba Switzler;9146244]

And, yet, graduation rates for the pooerst Americans are absolutely terrible. People disagree why but that is a fact.

I think that the standards of what the “minimum” is have raised dramatically.What a high school degree meant many years ago,now is nearly a doctorate.I have noticed also that whatever the “minimum target” is now,becomes unattainable for a huge amount of people.
So many are discouraged before starting or along the way.Role models have also shifted.And I want/have it “now” is a paradigm our parents and grandparents did not have to deal with.

. One problem is that Catholics, themselves, regard the American poor as generally not worth their attention given that there are far worse problems elsewhere in the world who can be helped more for much less money. It’s hard to argue with that.

It is.
Yet if there is one thing I have experienced is that when public school starts to stumble,you will have the best indicator that middle class is at stake.It is the begginning of the downfall.