Prosperity vs. Poverty

[stinkcat_14]

Ok, so my question is: what is the benefit of being prosperous? I mean, suppose I have $10 million which I invest and get a $200k annual income. The $200k is more than enough for my needs and wants, so I can quit my job and work with the homeless or whatever. What would be the gain to me of starting a business which would potentially double the $10 million? If the $200k provides more than I need now, what is the purpose of doing anything else with the money except generating a passive income?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Ok, so my question is: what is the benefit of being prosperous? I mean, suppose I have $10 million which I invest and get a $200k annual income. The $200k is more than enough for my needs and wants, so I can quit my job and work with the homeless or whatever. What would be the gain to me of starting a business which would potentially double the $10 million? If the $200k provides more than I need now, what is the purpose of doing anything else with the money except generating a passive income?

Good question.

General well being or worldly success, the greater concept of prosperity, is more than meeting material needs. So while it is true that you might be materially setup for life with a $10M inheritance, being a gentlemen of leisure is not a good life choice.

Quitting your job to work with the homeless might be the right thing for you. Giving your wealth away and joining a monestary might be the right thing. But I know lots of people who could retire early but choose to continue working because it is essential to their purpose in life. I would venture to guess that Bill Gates was far more spiritually fulfilled by buidling Microsoft than probably anything else he could have done. And now he gets to be a much bigger philanthropist than he could have been with his father’s money.

Perhaps most importantly, it is not only your needs that are at issue. Remember the parable of the talents. If, for example, you have a talent for something but you decide not to pursue that talent simply because you aleady have enough to live comfortably then you are not only depriving yourself of a productive life, you are depriving others of your productivity. Again, referring to Bill Gates, the would would be without Microsoft (or, if you prefer, without Steve Jobs laboring at Apple we would be without our macs and iphones).

It’s fine that most people are focused on earning enough to live on since, for most, that is a challenge. But in the case of those who “have enough” it does not follow that they should do nothing.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Good question.

General well being or worldly success, the greater concept of prosperity, is more than meeting material needs. So while it is true that you might be materially setup for life with a $10M inheritance, being a gentlemen of leisure is not a good life choice.

I think the problem is, you are setting up a false dichotomy. It doesn’t have to be a choice between work in the market or leisure, it could be a choice between work, nonmarket work and leisure. Of course, we would also have to define leisure as well because that can be vague. For example, I could easily increase my income by a third if I changed jobs, but that would require that I spend less time with my family. My current position gives me more time to spend with my family, so am I less prosperous because I choose to live on a third less income?

Quitting your job to work with the homeless might be the right thing for you. Giving your wealth away and joining a monestary might be the right thing. But I know lots of people who could retire early but choose to continue working because it is essential to their purpose in life. I would venture to guess that Bill Gates was far more spiritually fulfilled by buidling Microsoft than probably anything else he could have done. And now he gets to be a much bigger philanthropist than he could have been with his father’s money.

How would we have any clue about Bill Gate’s spiritual fulfillment unless we are his confessor? He could have built Microsoft because it was a spiritual quest, but he also could have built it because he was greedy. How would we ever know what his motivation was?

Perhaps most importantly, it is not only your needs that are at issue. Remember the parable of the talents. If, for example, you have a talent for something but you decide not to pursue that talent simply because you aleady have enough to live comfortably then you are not only depriving yourself of a productive life, you are depriving others of your productivity. Again, referring to Bill Gates, the would would be without Microsoft (or, if you prefer, without Steve Jobs laboring at Apple we would be without our macs and iphones).

The unwritten assumption here is that if we didn’t have Bill Gates, society would be worse off. That has not been established. If we didn’t have Bill Gates, someone else would have developed an operating system, that is the way markets work. I have a friend who is selling his business to become a missionary, is that less prosperous than turning his business into a $100 million venture? Of course, not.

It’s fine that most people are focused on earning enough to live on since, for most, that is a challenge. But in the case of those who “have enough” it does not follow that they should do nothing.

Of course, I never said that people should do nothing. The important point is that we shouldn’t bias our activities to those that have value in the marketplace.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think the problem is, you are setting up a false dichotomy. It doesn’t have to be a choice between work in the market or leisure, it could be a choice between work, nonmarket work and leisure. Of course, we would also have to define leisure as well because that can be vague. For example, I could easily increase my income by a third if I changed jobs, but that would require that I spend less time with my family. My current position gives me more time to spend with my family, so am I less prosperous because I choose to live on a third less income?

This has been covered ad nauseum including the post that you replied to. The general concept of worldy success certainly includes nonmarket work. I would not count leisure, though, as I understand the word; it is among the fruits of prosperity. Now that said, many English gentlement of leisure were, in fact, very active in the sciences but I suspect they were exceptional to judge from the stories I’ve seen.

How would we have any clue about Bill Gate’s spiritual fulfillment unless we are his confessor? He could have built Microsoft because it was a spiritual quest, but he also could have built it because he was greedy. How would we ever know what his motivation was?

I can speculate as well as the next person. We judge motivation all the time (e.g. in discerning premediatated murder from negligence).

The unwritten assumption here is that if we didn’t have Bill Gates, society would be worse off. That has not been established. If we didn’t have Bill Gates, someone else would have developed an operating system, that is the way markets work. I have a friend who is selling his business to become a missionary, is that less prosperous than turning his business into a $100 million venture? Of course, not.

Yes, that is the underlying claim. There are those who believe that individuals do not matter, who believe only in the general sweep of history. That is the Marxist view, not the Christian view. Christians believe that individuals and even their individual choices matter. Have you ever seen the move “It’s a Wonderful Life”?

Of course, I never said that people should do nothing. The important point is that we shouldn’t bias our activities to those that have value in the marketplace.

The marketplace is never perfect measure of productivity but it seems to do a good job at communicating what people value and measuring the value of work. For most it is a good place to focus their attention.

 

[stinkcat_14]

This has been covered ad nauseum including the post that you replied to. The general concept of worldy success certainly includes nonmarket work. I would not count leisure, though, as I understand the word; it is among the fruits of prosperity. Now that said, many English gentlement of leisure were, in fact, very active in the sciences but I suspect they were exceptional to judge from the stories I’ve seen.

In other words, someone who lives off the income from the $10 million can be just as prosperous as the person who invests the $10 million in a business and doubles its value to $20 million. Just making sure we are clear on that.

I can speculate as well as the next person. We judge motivation all the time (e.g. in discerning premediatated murder from negligence).

So, by what criteria do you determine that Bill is motivated by a spiritual quest and not by greed, or envy or some other motive?

Yes, that is the underlying claim. There are those who believe that individuals do not matter, who believe only in the general sweep of history. That is the Marxist view, not the Christian view. Christians believe that individuals and even their individual choices matter. Have you ever seen the move “It’s a Wonderful Life”?

No, my view is not the marxist view, it is the Smithian view. One of competitive markets. After all, Steve Jobs died, yet Apple goes on and is still making billions. Now in a marxist system, we wouldn’t have an Apple, because there would be no incentive to create it. On the other hand, under capitalism, we get progress regardless of whether or not we have a Steve Jobs. The effect of Steve in a competitive market is pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

The marketplace is never perfect measure of productivity but it seems to do a good job at communicating what people value and measuring the value of work. For most it is a good place to focus their attention.

The market does good in some situations. But not in every situation. The market does not produce people who visit lonely people in nursing homes. That is not a profitable activity in the market. The market does not educate poor people who cannot afford to pay the teachers. The education market works wonderfully for people who can afford to pay $50k plus per year, not so good for people who make $2 a day. So when we consider an individual’s prosperity, we cannot use purely market prices, because somethings have value that is not measured by the market.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

In other words, someone who lives off the income from the $10 million can be just as prosperous as the person who invests the $10 million in a business and doubles its value to $20 million. Just making sure we are clear on that.

I couldn’t judge from this information. What is the person living off the $10 doing? Should I assume leading a life of leisure? Then not.

So, by what criteria do you determine that Bill is motivated by a spiritual quest and not by greed, or envy or some other motive?

There are several indicators of motivation including love of work and product. But also my impression from afar is that he is a pretty happy person which argues against negative motivations like envy.

No, my view is not the marxist view, it is the Smithian view. One of competitive markets. After all, Steve Jobs died, yet Apple goes on and is still making billions. Now in a marxist system, we wouldn’t have an Apple, because there would be no incentive to create it. On the other hand, under capitalism, we get progress regardless of whether or not we have a Steve Jobs. The effect of Steve in a competitive market is pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

Smith did not try to explain everything by the “hidden hand” as did Marx. And competition is but a small part of economics, and not the most interesting part.

The market does good in some situations. But not in every situation. The market does not produce people who visit lonely people in nursing homes. That is not a profitable activity in the market. The market does not educate poor people who cannot afford to pay the teachers. The education market works wonderfully for people who can afford to pay $50k plus per year, not so good for people who make $2 a day. So when we consider an individual’s prosperity, we cannot use purely market prices, because somethings have value that is not measured by the market.

The main limitation of the market is that it reflects what people want and people often want bad things. But this turns out to be a limitation of competing systems also. Democracy, for example. But your points about the failure of the market to deliver to those in poverty simply brings us back to your previous question: what good is prosoerity? Well, there is your answer: To afford those good things that the market provides.

 

[stinkcat_14]

I couldn’t judge from this information. What is the person living off the $10 doing? Should I assume leading a life of leisure? Then not.

You would have no reason to assume a life of leisure, so like I said, we really cannot judge unless we know all of the details. So we cannot say that investing the $10 million in a business where the money might double is necessarily better.

There are several indicators of motivation including love of work and product. But also my impression from afar is that he is a pretty happy person which argues against negative motivations like envy.

That is the problem, your impression of Bill and my impression of Bill is from afar. I know people who are pretty good at putting on a happy public persona, but deep down they are troubled. You only get to know that if you know a person well enough. So we cannot really judge anyone’s motivations from afar.

Smith did not try to explain everything by the “hidden hand” as did Marx. And competition is but a small part of economics, and not the most interesting part.

Competition is probably not the most interesting because it works so well. After all, would Apple be as good of a company without Samsung? Probably not, just think of what AT and T was like when they were a monopoly. They provided bad and costly service regardless of who was leading the company.

The main limitation of the market is that it reflects what people want and people often want bad things. But this turns out to be a limitation of competing systems also. Democracy, for example. But your points about the failure of the market to deliver to those in poverty simply brings us back to your previous question: what good is prosoerity? Well, there is your answer: To afford those good things that the market provides.

But if you can already afford all of the good things the market provides, why would someone need additional “prosperity”? That is the reason I turned down the job that paid a third more than I make. I valued nonmarket goods more than market goods. Time with family is worth more to me than a fancy new car. My wife keeps getting told by her former bosses that if she left her company she could double her income. She told them that she makes plenty now, is she less prosperous because she doesn’t seek a higher paying job? Of course not.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You would have no reason to assume a life of leisure, so like I said, we really cannot judge unless we know all of the details. So we cannot say that investing the $10 million in a business where the money might double is necessarily better.

Based on the information provided, we can say. Just as we might imagine more for one we can imagine more for the other. Perhaps the person investing the $10 million is also feeding the poor in Africa and curing cancer in his spare time.

That is the problem, your impression of Bill and my impression of Bill is from afar. I know people who are pretty good at putting on a happy public persona, but deep down they are troubled. You only get to know that if you know a person well enough. So we cannot really judge anyone’s motivations from afar.

We judge by what we know. I may not know Bill Gates personally but he’s a pretty famous and public person.

Competition is probably not the most interesting because it works so well. After all, would Apple be as good of a company without Samsung? Probably not, just think of what AT and T was like when they were a monopoly. They provided bad and costly service regardless of who was leading the company.

Competition does something well. It’s not the best explanation for Apple’s success.

But if you can already afford all of the good things the market provides, why would someone need additional “prosperity”? That is the reason I turned down the job that paid a third more than I make. I valued nonmarket goods more than market goods. Time with family is worth more to me than a fancy new car. My wife keeps getting told by her former bosses that if she left her company she could double her income. She told them that she makes plenty now, is she less prosperous because she doesn’t seek a higher paying job? Of course not.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12861581&postcount=62

 

[stinkcat_14]

You’ve given me no information on what he’s doing or not doing. You’re asking if 3 > x. We can say that “investing the $10 million in a business where the money might double” is good and, in fact, depending on the time frame, better than average.

But the problem is, we have no concrete definition of prosperity, so we have no way we can compare the two situations until we have such a definition. While there is nothing wrong with investing in a business and doubling your money, that does not mean it is the best thing for a particular individual.

We judge by what we know. I may not know Bill Gates personally but he’s a pretty famous and public person.

Wisdom is the ability to know what you can conclude and what you cannot conclude from the available data. Some people that appear to be happy, actually aren’t. You can say Bill is on a spiritual quest and someone else can say that Bill is greedy. We can cherry pick evidence to support both views, but the reality is that we don’t really know.

Competition does something well. It’s not the best explanation for Apple’s success.

Who decides the best explanation for Apple’s success? The point is, that whether Steve Jobs is alive or is not alive is not that important in the grand scheme of things in a competitive market like the in the US and the developed world.

The problem with your vague definition of prosperity is that it doesn’t explicitly incorporate the value of nonmarket goods and transactions. If I tutor someone who is rich, I might charge $50 an hour, if I tutor a poor person, I might do it for free. The marginal benefit of additional learning might be higher for the poor person, which would make it a better thing to do, but how do you explicitly measure it when determining “prosperity”.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

But the problem is, we have no concrete definition of prosperity, so we have no way we can compare the two situations until we have such a definition. While there is nothing wrong with investing in a business and doubling your money, that does not mean it is the best thing for a particular individual.

Concrete definitions are better for some things but we deal with ambiguity in life all the time. I pointed out early in the thread that financial success is easier to measure and, so, might serve as a proxy for the general concept for the purpose of evaluating the hypotheses.

Wisdom is the ability to know what you can conclude and what you cannot conclude from the available data. Some people that appear to be happy, actually aren’t. You can say Bill is on a spiritual quest and someone else can say that Bill is greedy. We can cherry pick evidence to support both views, but the reality is that we don’t really know.

I can say Bill is spiritually fulfilled based on what I know of him. If further facts come to light I can revise my opinion. I’m not a Logical Positivist.

Who decides the best explanation for Apple’s success? The point is, that whether Steve Jobs is alive or is not alive is not that important in the grand scheme of things in a competitive market like the in the US and the developed world.

I can decide what I believe to be the best explanation for Apple’s success as well as you. The point is that Apple is a tremendously successful company that has improved the lives of millions and by all accounts Steve Jobs was instrumental in that success.

The problem with your vague definition of prosperity is that it doesn’t explicitly incorporate the value of nonmarket goods and transactions. If I tutor someone who is rich, I might charge $50 an hour, if I tutor a poor person, I might do it for free. The marginal benefit of additional learning might be higher for the poor person, which would make it a better thing to do, but how do you explicitly measure it when determining “prosperity”.

My vague definition of worldly success does incorporate the value of nonmarket goods and transactions. My more precise financial success does not. That is a tradeoff.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Concrete definitions are better for some things but we deal with ambiguity in life all the time. I pointed out early in the thread that financial success is easier to measure and, so, might serve as a proxy for the general concept for the purpose of evaluating the hypotheses.

I can say Bill is spiritually fulfilled based on what I know of him. If further facts come to light I can revise my opinion. I’m not a Logical Positivist.

I can decide what I believe to be the best explanation for Apple’s success as well as you. The point is that Apple is a tremendously successful company that has improved the lives of millions and by all accounts Steve Jobs was instrumental in that success.

My vague definition of worldly success does incorporate the value of nonmarket goods and transactions. My more precise financial success does not. That is a tradeoff.

I think part of the problem is that prosperity is a subjective definition and we really cannot generalize from it. For example, you don’t like leisure, so you don’t think it should count as prosperity. That is fine for you, because you are not defining it for anyone else, but just yourself. Someone else thinks leisure is a good things, so they include a life of leisure as meaning prosperity. So we are left with a situation where everyone can judge themselves as prosperous. Which, probably in the end is all that counts anyway.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I think part of the problem is that prosperity is a subjective definition and we really cannot generalize from it. For example, you don’t like leisure, so you don’t think it should count as prosperity. That is fine for you, because you are not defining it for anyone else, but just yourself. Someone else thinks leisure is a good things, so they include a life of leisure as meaning prosperity. So we are left with a situation where everyone can judge themselves as prosperous. Which, probably in the end is all that counts anyway.

It’s not that I don’t like leisure, its that it doesn’t fit the definition of prosperity in either the narrow financial sense or the more general worldly success sense. But, as I noted previously, leisure is one of the benefits of prosperity.

 

[stinkcat_14]

It’s not that I don’t like leisure, its that it doesn’t fit the definition of prosperity in either the narrow financial sense or the more general worldly success sense. But, as I noted previously, leisure is one of the benefits of prosperity.

Leisure is not prosperity, but income is. If I make 200k per year, why does it matter whether it comes from working or dividends. Money from both sources spends just the same.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Leisure is not prosperity, but income is. If I make 200k per year, why does it matter whether it comes from working or dividends. Money from both sources spends just the same.

But spending money is not the sole purpose of prosperity and if you can earn X passively then you can earn >X actively, i.e. be more prosperous.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12861581&postcount=62

 

[stinkcat_14]

But spending money is not the sole purpose of prosperity and if you can earn X passively then you can earn >X actively, i.e. be more prosperous.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12861581&postcount=62

One the other hand, if X is sufficient, you can switch over to nonmarket activities and be prosperous as well. This is only possible with the prosperity due to the nonlabor income.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One the other hand, if X is sufficient, you can switch over to nonmarket activities and be prosperous as well. This is only possible with the prosperity due to the nonlabor income.

In the terms that I have been developing so far, I would describe this as a switch from a pursuit of financial to non-financial prosperity.

Even leisure might be included if you included a more complex analysis of choice of activity. The problem with a life of leisure is that it overvalues leisure in the mix of worldly success. Leisure, in the Christian view, is an activity that recharges the spirit and prepares one to renew productive activities. The most common example is the Sabbath.

A more complex analysis of choice of activity would certain weigh the need for financial income but it must also include those things I previously mentioned. If, for example, you are really good at your job and enjoy it then it might make more sense for you to stay on your job and give financially to others who are more adept at feeding the poor, or whatever. This, I think, was the case with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs when they were well past their material needs.

 

[sallybutler]

I guess what you are saying then is that both prosperity and proverty are states of mind, not related to the amount of money one makes or one’s net worth, but how one feels about it???

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I guess what you are saying then is that both prosperity and proverty are states of mind, not related to the amount of money one makes or one’s net worth, but how one feels about it???

I would say it’s more subtle than that.

It’s easy to speak objectively about financial or material prosperity vs. poverty. It’s easy to observe, easy to measure, and relatively straightforward to achieve. And after much discussion I am firmly of the opinion that income and not net worth is a better measure of financial prosperity.

But that is a shallow concept of prosperity. The deeper meaning that I have been falling back on since the first few posts is something more like worldly success which includes happiness, satisfaction with life, etc. That certainly includes how one feels about one’s achievements.

But I hesitate to say that it can all be put down to how you feel about it. Prosperity is grounded in reality, it’s not all in your head, even if it’s vague and hard to pin down precisely.

 

[davidv]

I would say it’s more subtle than that.

It’s easy to speak objectively about financial or material prosperity vs. poverty. It’s easy to observe, easy to measure, and relatively straightforward to achieve. And after much discussion I am firmly of the opinion that income and not net worth is a better measure of financial prosperity.

But that is a shallow concept of prosperity. The deeper meaning that I have been falling back on since the first few posts is something more like worldly success which includes happiness, satisfaction with life, etc. That certainly includes how one feels about one’s achievements.

But I hesitate to say that it can all be put down to how you feel about it. Prosperity is grounded in reality, it’s not all in your head, even if it’s vague and hard to pin down precisely.

This prosperity that you speak of seems to be the antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us.
Matt 16:24:

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

This prosperity that you speak of seems to be the antithesis of ours Saviors direction to us.

That is H3: Prosperity is the result of sinful behavior. The virtuous live lives of poverty.

Is that your belief?