The rich have money -- and passion

[vern_humphrey]

Which resulted in a real increase of $73 between 2000 and 2006.

Which is nevertheless an increase – and with more people working, represents real economic progress.

We may not agree, but let us at least agree to be fair in our presentation of economic statistics.

Agreed – we can start by not pretending that an increase is other than an increase.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Why should Catholics,or anyone who has meditated upon the beatitudes,or observed how God prefers the poor,weak,and the lowest among us entertain the thought that to be affluent is really a good thing? Why should we even be so ambitious to acquire wealth and goods,when it so easily leads to
pride,self-satisfaction,self-justification,mistaken priorities,hard-heartedness,and a lessened dependence upon God ? What man exalts is an abomination in the eyes of God,as it says
somewhere in the Old Testament. Many of the wealthy men we are tempted to admire and envy turn out,on closer inspection,to be like walking abominations. They are small men who have propped themselves up on a mountain of money,goods,reputation. If you were to sever,in your mind’s eye,these men from their money,goods and reputation,what would you be left with to admire ? You’d be left with weak,petty,bitter,cursing,rotten,self-spoiled brats with immature attachments. Wealth is a dubious thing to have. It easily becomes more of a curse, in God’s eyes, to the person who has it,even if he thinks he is happy. Few people can have wealth without it having a corrosive effect on the soul or a hardening effect on the heart.

I think the desire to improve our current state is as natural as eating or breathing. If taken to extreme, it can certainly lead to what you have described, anytime one makes the pursuit of anything material or worldly “god” or the priority of their life it can lead to emptiness and a lack of fulfillment. I really haven’t found that to be the case in my experience though, to be honest. Most of the people I know or worked for who “made it” gave a lot of their money to charity and were generous with their time and were charitable, not envious people.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Which resulted in a real increase of $73 between 2000 and 2006.

We may not agree, but let us at least agree to be fair in our presentation of economic statistics.

I am confused. I am assuming you know the difference between “nominal” and “real” - “real” meaning that their per capita income growth was greater than cost-of-living; in other words, per capita purchasing power increased - people could buy the same “basket of goods” as before and have $73 left over; yet you seem to be emphasizing “real” in a way I would expect someone to emphasize merely a “nominal” increase. So…what were you trying to say?

 

[Vaclav]

Which is nevertheless an increase – and with more people working, represents real economic progress.

Agreed – we can start by not pretending that an increase is other than an increase.

And $73 over six years is $12 per year.

It is an increase, in that it is not a negative number and is above zero.

It is not a significant increase by any means, and “real economic progress” is an opinion. Setting the bar at a real term increase of $12 per year in per-capita income is not exactly an impressive goal.

I’m curious though, what countries don’t you see as capitalist?

For example you’ve stated that you vehemently dislike the welfare system. Yet, there are other countries with larger welfare systems as a percentage of their GDP that have higher per capita incomes than the United States as well as lower poverty rates.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think the desire to improve our current state is as natural as eating or breathing. If taken to extreme, it can certainly lead to what you have described, anytime one makes the pursuit of anything material or worldly “god” or the priority of their life it can lead to emptiness and a lack of fulfillment. I really haven’t found that to be the case in my experience though, to be honest. Most of the people I know or worked for who “made it” gave a lot of their money to charity and were generous with their time and were charitable, not envious people.

As I pointed out, Charity and Social Justice are two different things. Charity relates to the Corporal Works of Mercy, whereas Social Justice aims at changing conditions so fewer people need charity. The message of Social Justice is, “Help people support themselves.”

It is no part of Catholic doctrine to denegrate people for wanting to better themselves. If people can better their economic condition, they should be encouraged – not discouraged. And when they are better off, they can help others.

 

[Vaclav]

I am confused. I am assuming you know the difference between “nominal” and “real” - “real” meaning that their per capita income growth was greater than cost-of-living; in other words, per capita purchasing power increased - people could buy the same “basket of goods” as before and have $73 left over; yet you seem to be emphasizing “real” in a way I would expect someone to emphasize merely a “nominal” increase. So…what were you trying to say?

That the increase was not very much, though nominal per capita income is typically a very poor indicator of anything really.

The poster was using the statistic as a highlight of economic gains from 2000 to 2006, but the increase was not as significant as shown.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

That the increase was not very much, though nominal per capita income is typically a very poor indicator of anything really.

The poster was using the statistic as a highlight of economic gains from 2000 to 2006, but the increase was not as significant as shown.

OK.

What I would like to see is per capita income growth from 2002 to 2006, after the tech bubble popped and 9/11, airline collapse and Enron scandal brought the economy further down. 2000 was the peak of the tech boom before the recession. I am guessing real wages were at their highest in history at that point. If real wages are higher now than they were at the peak of the tech boom, then that is very significant. I really didn’t read the stats though, I am just going on your word of what was represented. OK back to work here…have a good one

 

[vern_humphrey]

And $73 over six years is $12 per year.

It is an increase, in that it is not a negative number and is above zero.

It is not a significant increase by any means, and “real economic progress” is an opinion. Setting the bar at a real term increase of $12 per year in per-capita income is not exactly an impressive goal.

But it doesn’t support the claim that we are regressing economically, now does it?

I’m curious though, what countries don’t you see as capitalist?

Name a poor country that is capitalist.

For example you’ve stated that you vehemently dislike the welfare system.

No. I have stated that our welfare system contributes to perpetuating poverty. When you look at how poverty ceased to decline with the Great Society, and see how poor families were torn apart by the “man in the house” rule, how more children out of wedlock amounted to more welfare, how we did not put on a simultaneous push to improve education in the poorest districts – you see clearly how, with the greatest good will in the world, we have done great damage to the very people we were trying to help.

Yet, there are other countries with larger welfare systems as a percentage of their GDP that have higher per capita incomes than the United States as well as lower poverty rates.

They do not have as heterogenous a population as the United States – and those nations that are now becoming significantly heterogenous are experiencing great difficulties.

 

[Vaclav]

But it doesn’t support the claim that we are regressing economically, now does it?

I never made that claim.

Name a poor country that is capitalist.

Where do I start? You want me to start with Central America? Africa? Eastern Europe, where some of the GDP’s are lower now than under communism?

They do not have as heterogenous a population as the United States – and those nations that are now becoming significantly heterogenous are experiencing great difficulties.

That almost sounds borderline racist, but I know that is not what you mean. Can you explain what you are trying to say here?

 

[vern_humphrey]

OK.

What I would like to see is per capita income growth from 2002 to 2006, after the tech bubble popped and 9/11, airline collapse and Enron scandal brought the economy further down. 2000 was the peak of the tech boom before the recession. I am guessing real wages were at their highest in history at that point. If real wages are higher now than they were at the peak of the tech boom, then that is very significant. I really didn’t read the stats though, I am just going on your word of what was represented. OK back to work here…have a good one

Easily done:

2000 – $29,469
2001 – $30,413
2002 – $30,906
2003 – $31,632
2005 – $34,586

(For some reason the census site omits 2004 from the table.)

An interesting exercise is to dump this data into Excel and produce a line graph.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I never made that claim.

Then why all the discussion?

Where do I start? You want me to start with Central America? Africa?

Caudillismo, tribalism, and dictatorships are not capitalist systems.

Eastern Europe, where some of the GDP’s are lower now than under communism?

The collapse of communism did not automatically make their economic systems capitalist

That almost sounds borderline racist, but I know that is not what you mean. Can you explain what you are trying to say here?

Nations must adapt to the cultures of their people. Some cultures are remarkably resistant to capitalism. For example, how do you bring the material benefits of a modern economy to a non-material culture? How do you bring modern medicine to a culture that relies on “traditional medicine?”

How do you assimilate large numbers of poorly-educated people from a different culture and mainstream them into the economy?

Sweden does not have problems like this. The United States does – in spades. Many European nations – for example, France – and beginning to experience them.

 

[Vaclav]

Caudillismo, tribalism, and dictatorships are not capitalist systems.

The collapse of communism did not automatically make their economic systems capitalist

Capitalism is an amazing system when you can define it to only include the best of what you want!

Nations must adapt to the cultures of their people. Some cultures are remarkably resistant to capitalism. For example, how do you bring the material benefits of a modern economy to a non-material culture? How do you bring modern medicine to a culture that relies on “traditional medicine?”

So you are saying there are enough capitalist-resistant cultures in the United States that it significantly impacts the economic statistics of the country? Can you name some of these cultures?

How do you assimilate large numbers of poorly-educated people from a different culture and mainstream them into the economy?

How do you propose to do that?

Sweden does not have problems like this. The United States does – in spades. Many European nations – for example, France – and beginning to experience them.

Sweden’s minority population might surprise you due to the large amount of refugees they accept (especially Kurdish and Iraqi refugees right now). I’m not sure if that is what you mean though.

Are you saying that a multicultural nation will have more difficulty than a non multicultural nation?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Capitalism is an amazing system when you can define it to only include the best of what you want!

That is uncalled for!

In fact, I offered a defintion of Capitalism – the standard dictionary defintion, “private ownership of the means of production and distribution for profit in a competitive environment.”

I think I am owed an apology for that accusation.

So you are saying there are enough capitalist-resistant cultures in the United States that it significantly impacts the economic statistics of the country? Can you name some of these cultures?

There are cultures which do not value education and see themslves as both oppressed and victims. Do you deny that?

Go to your state’s No Child Left Behind site and look at the report cards. Which children are most likely to be educationally behind? Those are the cultures of which I speak – they include the “hillbillies” (and I happen to be one) and many other sub-cultures where poverty is endemic.

How do you propose to do that?

You answer a question with a question?

***I ***propose better education. I propose inculcating values – including hard work, saving and investing. I propose not constantly telling them “You can’t win. It’s all a plot. You can’t make it.”

Sweden’s minority population might surprise you due to the large amount of refugees they accept (especially Kurdish and Iraqi refugees right now). I’m not sure if that is what you mean though.

I’m well aware of demographic change in Europe – and the resulting problems of assimilating different cultures.

Are you saying that a multicultural nation will have more difficulty than a non multicultural nation?

Given that the monocultural nation values education, hard work, saving and investing, yes. Look at Japan, Korea and Singapore for examples.

On the other hand, if the monocultural nation does not value education, hard work, saving and investing, then their chances of economic progress are much reduced.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

Easily done:

2000 – $29,469
2001 – $30,413
2002 – $30,906
2003 – $31,632
2005 – $34,586

(For some reason the census site omits 2004 from the table.)

An interesting exercise is to dump this data into Excel and produce a line graph.

That surprises me. I would have anticipated real wages as going down for a couple years after 2000 and then rebounding within the past couple years.

 

[vern_humphrey]

That surprises me. I would have anticipated real wages as going down for a couple years after 2000 and then rebounding within the past couple years.

You would be absolutely right.

Consider:
2001 – $30,413 (the year of 9/11 – which was late in the year)
2002 – $30,906

The next year, wages went up 1.6% – which is less than the rate of inflation. So real wages actually went down after 9/11.

 

[jc-servant]

We can all be affluent – if we take advantage of the free education offered us, get jobs, work hard, constantly upgrade our skills, seek more responsibility, save and invest.

And we can help others – by fostering those values, instead of denegrating the people who practice them.

I have to disagree with part of your theory regarding affluence being attainable for all but the severely disabled. I do believe that we all should help to promote good values regarding working, saving and investing. However, I do believe that there are sometimes external factors which can prevent an individual from achieving affluence even if they make the best choices available to them.

There are things such as who we get for parents and whether or not they are total loonies or drug addicts or abusive that are beyond our control. Some people are able to escape from these “handicaps” later in life, but as a young child who may have the desire to get a good education they can be prevented from making full use of the public school system by their own family. If a prostitute/druggie mother is bringing home “friends” every night and using all of the food money for herself, then a child is just not going to be starting from a level playing field compared to a child who has even minimally decent living conditions and a full stomach every night. I know people who took many years after they left home making up for the education that they could not get as children due to abusive homes where they were hungry, forced to labor instead of studying and physically abused.

A person who does not get started earning more than a subsistence wage until later in life has less time to save and earn compound interest than someone who is able to get an education/training and begin saving/investing earlier in life. This could prevent them from becoming “wealthy” although they might be able to earn enough to meet their basic needs and still have savings/investments.

I believe your basic theory that everyone can be affluent also fails to take into account things that are important to living a good Catholic life that are not always compatible with building the most “wealth” given our available choices in life.

If a woman does her best in school and then starts working her way up at work, she can have 2 very different outcomes financially based simply on whether or not she chooses to marry. If marriage is the vocation that God has planned for her, then assuming she is fertile and follows church teaching regarding no artificial contraception, the outcome of “affluent” or not may rest on her spouse’s choices regardless of her education, drive and hard work. On the other hand she could choose to commit mortal sin and contracept and do whatever else might be necessary to keep moving up and to make the most money. She might end up affluent on Earth and burning in Hell for eternity. Not a real choice in my mind. Maybe you were not thinking about women at all when you made your statements, but you did not exclude them from your generic theory.

I can tell you from personal experience that I have many times in life chosen the more moral option rather than the one that would have been the most likely to give me a leg up or the most money. If the choice comes down to Heaven or affluence I’m not going to to sweat the loss of Earthly wealth. Given the fact that I had sufficient intelligence, support and drive to get a law degree and work hard, I am still likely to achieve actual “affluence” rather than just financial security while living morally. However, I believe that there are many people who while not mentally disabled are just not mentally capable of performing sufficiently complex work to reap the salaries necessary to support a family and become “affluent” while still making only moral decisions. It does not mean that they will end up on welfare or lacking in retirement, but it might prevent them from being wealthy.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do believe that there are sometimes external factors which can prevent an individual from achieving affluence even if they make the best choices available to them.

There are people who eat right, exercise, don’t drink or smoke – and get run over by a truck.

But that doesn’t mean that most people who follow that regime won’t be healthier.

There are things such as who we get for parents and whether or not they are total loonies or drug addicts or abusive that are beyond our control.

We must find a way to educate those children and inculcate in them the values that offer them the best chance of success.

One way would be to start and support more Catholic schools.

I know people who took many years after they left home making up for the education that they could not get as children due to abusive homes where they were hungry, forced to labor instead of studying and physically abused.

All true – and this is where we must look for solutions.

We’re spinning our wheels when we rail at the “rich,” or accuse others of “not knowing what it’s like to be poor.” What we need to do is focus on the very people you describe and develop strategies to help them

As I said, expanding our Catholic schools would be one way.

Mentoring is another – my wife, a registered nurse, works at our local nursing home. In the past six or seven years, she has persuaded a dozen Certified Nursing Assistants to go on and become Registered Nurses (and drafted me to help them with math and other college subjects.)

Each one of those girls represents a break in the poverty cycle.

A person who does not get started earning more than a subsistence wage until later in life has less time to save and earn compound interest.

Again, perfectly true – but note in the orginal cites how some of those who became affluent had exactly the problems we talk about – poor upbringing, poor education, late start – and overcame all that.

I believe your basic theory that everyone can be affluent also fails to take into account things that are important to living a good Catholic life that are not always compatible with building the most “wealth” given our available choices in life.

What part of Catholicism says, “Don’t get an education. Don’t work hard. Don’t save and invest?”

If a woman does her best in school and then starts working her way up at work, she can have 2 very different outcomes financially based simply on whether or not she chooses to marry.

My wife is married. She works hard, saves and invests.

If marriage is the vocation that God has planned for her, then assuming she is fertile and follows church teaching regarding no artificial contraception, the outcome of “affluent” or not may rest on her spouse’s choices regardless of her education, drive and hard work. On the other hand she could choose to commit mortal sin and contracept and do whatever else might be necessary to keep moving up and to make the most money. She might end up affluent on Earth and burning in Hell for eternity. Not a real choice in my mind. Maybe you were not thinking about women at all when you made your statements, but you did not exclude them from your generic theory.

Natural family planning is endorsed by the Church and it works.

I can tell you from personal experience that I have many times in life chosen the more moral option rather than the one that would have been the most likely to give me a leg up or the most money. If the choice comes down to Heaven or affluence I’m not going to to sweat the loss of Earthly wealth. Given the fact that I had sufficient intelligence, support and drive to get a law degree and work hard, I am still likely to achieve actual “affluence” rather than just financial security while living morally. However, I believe that there are many people who while not mentally disabled are just not mentally capable of performing sufficiently complex work to reap the salaries necessary to support a family and become “affluent” while still making only moral decisions.

I believe in several posts I indicated that some people, due to mental or physical disabilities cannot do what others can do.

It does not mean that they will end up on welfare or lacking in retirement, but it might prevent them from being wealthy.

I know people who cannot get and hold a job because of their disabilities (on the other hand, I know some with disabilities who do very well.) But how does that invalidate the basic proposition that we should seek to give every child a first-class education and inculcate in them a respect for hard work, saving and investment?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

As I pointed out, Charity and Social Justice are two different things. Charity relates to the Corporal Works of Mercy, whereas Social Justice aims at changing conditions so fewer people need charity. The message of Social Justice is, “Help people support themselves.”

That’s not what I read when I read Encyclicals like Mater et Magistra. That sounds like a catholicized version of Rush Limbaugh.

Here’s what I read in Mater et Magistra:
Mater et Magistra:

1. As for the State, its whole raison d’etre is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, “the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue.”[7] It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women and children. It can never be right for the State to shirk its obligation of working actively for the betterment of the condition of the workingman.
2. It is furthermore the duty of the State to ensure that terms of employment are regulated in accordance with justice and equity, and to safeguard the human dignity of workers by making sure that they are not required to work in an environment which may prove harmful to their material and spiritual interests. It was for this reason that the Leonine encyclical enunciated those general principles of rightness and equity which have been assimilated into the social legislation of many a modern State, and which, as Pope Pius XI declared in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno,[8] have made no small contribution to the rise and development of that new branch of jurisprudence called labor law.

Interestingly, it is one of the goals of a particular political ideology (whose party has married itself to Christian moral issues…politics makes strange bedfellows) to undo the branch of jurisprudence called labor law.

It is no part of Catholic doctrine to denegrate people for wanting to better themselves. If people can better their economic condition, they should be encouraged – not discouraged. And when they are better off, they can help others.

This is true, to an extent. I don’t have a problem with a person working hard and moving up the social ladder, as it were. I do have a problem with people who sit around on their butts around the pool waiting for dividend checks to come in so they can buy the latest sports car or such. It’s the idle rich who are more of a problem, IMO.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Easily done:

2000 – $29,469
2001 – $30,413
2002 – $30,906
2003 – $31,632
2005 – $34,586

(For some reason the census site omits 2004 from the table.)

An interesting exercise is to dump this data into Excel and produce a line graph.

That surprises me. I would have anticipated real wages as going down for a couple years after 2000 and then rebounding within the past couple years.

These are not “real” numbers they are “nominal” numbers if you use real numbers you will see a 2001 and one peak. here is a link swivel.com/data_columns/spreadsheet/1001700

 

[vern_humphrey]

That’s not what I read when I read Encyclicals like Mater et Magistra. That sounds like a catholicized version of Rush Limbaugh.

Was it your intention to be offensive?

Here’s what I read in Mater et Magistra:

Which is not in conflict with what I have said – Mater et Magistra does not demand communism – rather it holds that we so structure society as to allow all who can support themselves to do just that.

And as the cites I posted at the beginning of this thread show, our society is remarkably open to those who will work, save and invest.

Our problems are not a lack of goods, nor a deliberate holding back of certain people – but rather a failure to educate and inculcate the values associated with success.

Interestingly, it is one of the goals of a particular political ideology (whose party has married itself to Christian moral issues…politics makes strange bedfellows) to undo the branch of jurisprudence called labor law.

What is the relevance of that to the issue under discussion?

This is true, to an extent. I don’t have a problem with a person working hard and moving up the social ladder, as it were. I do have a problem with people who sit around on their butts around the pool waiting for dividend checks to come in so they can buy the latest sports car or such. It’s the idle rich who are more of a problem, IMO.

As the original cites show, such “idle rich” are more a figment of the imagination than a reality. Most affluent people earned it on their own.