Last year, we replaced our TV. We didn’t get anything fancy – a smallish, flat screen TV. We didn’t need another TV. We already had one. But it was boxy and simply didn’t work in our living room. A reasonable purchase, right? Or does the fact that we had money to spend on a new TV mean that we have too much at our disposal? That we should have given that money to people that really needed it?
There are astonishing income disparities in the United States and between the United States and the world as a whole. According to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, in 2007 the top decile of American earners made 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring' 1920s."* Most of us within the Carleton community probably do not think of ourselves as rich. When we think of rich people, we think of the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, LeBron James or Oprah Winfrey. And there’s no doubt that these people really are very rich. We are not like Gates, James or Winfrey. We are, however, people who upgrade their TVs to better suit their living rooms, or to be able to watch the NFL in HD.
Now take a moment to consider your income in relation to the rest of the world (or, if you don’t have an income yet, what you see yourself earning in 10 years). Suppose your gross annual income is $40 000 in your first job after college. According to this site, you will be amongst the richest 1% of people in the world and earn more than 36 times the median world income. Even if you gave 10% of your income to charity or other causes you deem worthy, you would still have earnings in the top 1.3% of the world, earning 33 times more than the median world income.
In light of these figures, doesn’t it make sense to say that we are indeed rich? And does it also suggest that we may have too much money if giving away 10% of our income barely affects our standing in the world? Do we have an obligation to give away some of our wealth? By some standards, we are not rich. But by others, we are very rich. And so we want to know:
How rich is too rich?
(Engaging in ethical reflection is its own reward. But so is the $20 gift certificate to the Carleton bookstore we will randomly give to one lucky commenter. So join in!)
*As reported in the Huffington Post (where you can also find Saez's original paper).
Other Links of Interest
"What Should a Billionaire Give – and What Should You?" New York Times, 2006
Hans Rosling's 200 Countries, 200 Years, 4 Minutes - The Joy of Stats - BBC Four
Listen to the EthIC reading group discussion on Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save
Comments
I think it has something to do with the fact that I grew up in two very different worlds: Roughly half of my life has been lived in the third world -- Delhi, Johannesburg, etc -- and the other in wealthy pockets of the developed world. In the third world my family had servants, I attended private international schools and the problems of the poor who lived everywhere around me could have been easily ignored. Conversely, and ironically, going to public school and spending hours on public transportation in the developed world was where I really was able to enter and try to understand the world of those less wealthy and fortunate than I.
Many of you may be familiar with the kind of realization I had in New York ("I live in a beautiful house with a stocked fridge, but my best friend's parents are unemployed and he has to pay his own way through college..."). In the third world, such a realization is not always possible, for the problems of the poor are much less accessible, and so much more overwhelming.
For me, the realization has instilled redistributive aspirations for what I plan to do with my life. I have heard many a friend at Carleton invoke the "impulsivist," youthful lament in terms of their career goals: "I just want to do what I want to do." The key for me in learning from this otherwise noble sentiment is that one MUST realize that not everyone has the ability to simply "do what they want to do," and that it is almost never their own fault. A boy in Beverly Hills seldom, if ever, dreams of being born in Malawi in the way that the Malawian boy yearns to have been born into luxury. Remember: neither of them got to choose, and neither of them were different at birth.
So finally, to answer the question: How rich is too rich? Pretend for a moment that I am the boy from Beverly Hills. The analogy is not far off. I can't be expected to give up the comforts of my lifestyle -- for aren't those comforts and the associated benefits exactly what we're trying to give everyone when we say we're fighting poverty and raising living standards? But there are ways to instill values in the Beverly Hills boy that will gear him towards a life in which he fights against the inequalities he sees in the world instead of contributing or perpetuating them.
Thus, while charity and foreign aid have unquestionably helped the world's poor live better lives, I don't think this debate should be framed in those terms, as Professor Groll may have implied above. For me, there isn't such a thing as "too rich." Rather we have people in our midst who are "too ignorant," "too greedy," and "too wasteful." The lives of those less wealthy than ourselves are worth too much to deal with them by throwing money around. Instead of donating cash, I propose that we convince those rich children, who want to "just do what they want to do," that what they REALLY want to do, and what would surely make the world a better place, is to devote their lives in one way or another, big or small (not too small, haha) to achieving greater equality.
We need to start teaching this kind of empathy better at a young age. If you're interested, there's a brilliant video on this subject: it's an animated version of a speech given at the British Royal Academy for the Sciences and Arts and its titled: The Empathic Civilisation. Its only ten minutes long and a fantastic way to procrastinate.
I’m not sure if I agree with the implications that the question “How rich is too rich?” implies—that there is such a thing as too rich, and that there is a necessary next step of doing something to prevent a “too rich” state from occurring. Similar to what Max said, I think that wealth only becomes a problem when it is not used responsibly and in a way to better the lives of those who are not as fortunate.
For me, the problem then becomes that, in general, those with wealth (which Saez argues is much greater than our initial assumption) do not use it to better those who are less fortunate, or at least very rarely to the extent that they could. Following this argument, I think that if someone has money to spare—after the necessities of life as that person considers them, whether that includes only room and board or yearly subscriptions to the local symphony— and does not use this money productively, then I think it is fair to call them too rich.
I was hesitant to approach that line of reasoning at the beginning of this post because it implies an eagerness to participate in social welfare and activism that many people do not feel, and it feels uncomfortable to impose it. While one solution may be, as Max says, to focus attention on giving the wealthier children a broader awareness of their situation and empathy, I don’t think that addresses the question of what to do right now.
We live in a vastly unequal world, and I think it’s necessary to do something about it. And those who have the highest obligation are those who have the greatest ability to make that difference. As hesitant as I am to approach it, I think there are people who are too rich, and it includes many people here at Carleton. This only becomes a negative description when those who are too rich fail to act.
I agree both with Hunter and Max-that we need greater awareness of diverse economic issues and situations in the world, and that the question: how rich is too rich? begs nuances. In my opinion, someone is too rich when they have exorbitant wealth and fail to act. I do believe that wealth brings power to change and a responsibility to do so, however wealth brings the freedom to choose what to do with that wealth-leading me to come to Max's conclusion, that a better informed "rich society" may be the best way to fight vast economic imbalance without imposing redistribution (or something like that).
Regarding the imposition of a commitment to social welfare and activism, as Hunter discusses, I too am hesitant to place that on people who are statistically too rich. I believe my hesitance comes from living in a country where individualism and the freedom to choose your life, liberty, and happiness is designed as a basic right of citizenship. On the other hand, it is this "imposition" that is inherent in socialist societies; which to me, means that "too rich" is a term that should be considered culturally. That being said, someone with x amount of wealth in a certain country may be considered richer in that country than a person in a richer country with the same amount of wealth. Do these people have the same social responsibility?
By the standards of the world as a whole, we are indeed rich. But relatively few of us actually have experience of the world as a whole--at least not direct, personal experience in the world's poorer countries, face-to-face with real people subsisting on pennies a day. Most of us are aware of world poverty from a distance, through the media, a step removed emotionally. So what we compare ourselves to, when we define ourselves as rich or poor or middle-class, is the standard of living of our peers and neighbors.
(Or to be more accurate: our perception of the standard of living of our peers and neighbors. Because most of the time there's no way for us to know if that lifestyle is a house of cards, an illusion created by generating massive amounts of consumer debt.)
It's interesting, though, how reluctant Americans are to define themselves as anything above middle-class, even when they clearly are. Public radio's Marketplace program did a great segment on this--check it out here. People with household incomes of $250K/year had enormous resistance to calling themselves "rich," when by any measure they are--in the world, and even in America. They persisted in believing they were solidly middle-class despite all statistics & evidence to the contrary.
How rich is too rich? I don't believe in placing a limit on how much a person can legitimately earn/profit, nor in moral judgments based on size of a person's net worth. I think the bigger questions are:
-What moral responsibilities accompany the acquisition of wealth?
-How can we encourage charity and philanthropy at all earning levels? (Giving back and paying forward should not be limited to the wealthy alone.)
-How can we encourage fiscal responsibility...personally and nationally? (Americans are the worst savers in the world, and the most indebted, two conditions that combine to discourage charitable giving.)
I don't know that I've addressed the actual question all that well, but am very interested in the topic!
[Warning: my argument is much less cohesive and well-articulated than those already posted here, but I hope I've offered up some interesting points that people with a better understanding of economics or philosophy can either bolster or refute with real evidence.]
I really like the points being made in this discussion and that there are several different perspectives. As much as I'd like to agree with the idea that those with a lot of money should use it to help those without, I'm hesitant to. Max is right that the kid born in Beverly Hills and the kid born in Malawi didn't get to choose, but I don't think that necessarily means the Beverly Hills kid should necessarily use his money to donate to charity or help the poor. It would be great if he did, but it was chance that put him where he is in the world, and I don't believe he should be obligated to correct for that.
I guess in my ideal world everyone would get supported to the point of being able to live a comfortable lifestyle while those lucky enough to be in born in the top bracket (or the lucky few who can work their way up) would be able to buy the whipped cream and cherry on top. One of the problems with this is that capitalism as it's practiced in the US seems to almost necessitate a growing inequality. The Beverly Hills boy gets to go to a good school, gets to go to a good college, and gets to go on to a good, high-paying career. While it is possible, it is exceedingly unlikely the boy from Malawi will get the same. This means while Beverly Hills gets to continue the family wealth, and pass on the opportunities it provides to his descendents, Malawi can only achieve that same level through an incredibly unlikely lucky break.
I guess my point is that we shouldn't be fretting over how rich too rich is. Short of paying for the education of or facilitating the obtainment of a job with a good salary for every disadvantaged child in the world, not much is going to change. Yes, you can donate money to organizations that provide food and clean drinking water, and yes, you can send hats and mittens to orphanages, and yes, you can volunteer at homeless shelters, but none of those are going to change the fundamental issue of economic disparity in the world. That doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't try because the aforementioned activities can definitely improve their quality of life, which is wonderful. In the end, however, that won't close the gap because they're still not well prepared enough to compete in the job market with those of us who are going to schools like Carleton.
(I hope it's okay if I leave a short comment?)
One question that I've grappled with for a long time that is relevant to this question is "Can we have wealth without poverty?".
What are your thoughts on this?
How can I be rich without someone else having to be poor so that the distinction can be made?
Heather's comment (on 20 January) raises two important issues that are part of any discussion of income inequality.
1. Is "rich" a relative or absolute term? The average American is rich compared to much of the world but may feel much less rich (or even poor) compared to other Americans. In this case relative considerations are at play. On the other hand, if you look at the standard of living of the typical American in terms of basic human needs for things like food, shelter, clothing, etc. we are absolutely wealthy--we have far more than we "need." Most of us, naturally, find ourselves making relative comparisons more often than thinking in absolute terms.
2. Heather implicitly raises a second question about economic growth. What matters more, the size of the pie or how it is cut? It is very important to remind ourselves that economic activity is not a zero sum game. Your success does not have to come at my expense. If you invent a new product that makes you rich, I too can benefit from having access to that product and from the economic activity your company generates--maybe I can work at the company. A similar issue comes up when looking at the recent economic success of China. Their growth does not have to come at the expense of any other country, and in fact as they get "richer" other countries benefit as well, as Chinese consumers buy products from the rest of the world. So economic activity can make the size of the pie bigger through economic growth and everyone, potentially, can be better off.
But of course we also care about how that bigger pie is cut and shared among different individuals. If you make a successful new product, what obligation, if any, do you have to share your new wealth with others, either through taxes or charity?
And of course this raises a further complication. The way the pie is cut affects the size of the pie through economic incentives. If you start a new successful new company but find that your new wealth is taxed away at too high a rate, you may choose not to go through the trouble and work of starting a new company, which keeps the pie from growing.
Hard questions.
I believe Heather raises an interesting point in her post that in order for some people to be 'wealthy' there must be people who live in poverty. This isn't necessarily true. Technological innovation allows for progress in production that means products or substitutes for a product are less scarce than they once were. Take, for example, ice cream. Once regarded as a novel product that could only be enjoyed certain times of the year by a particular class many people all over the world now enjoy ice cream in every season. This has been made possible by advances in chemistry, refrigeration, transportation etc. The notion that millions of people would enjoy ice cream on a daily basis a hundred years ago would sound absurd.
We can also consider something that isn't a luxury good. Adjusted for inflation, the price of a bushel of wheat in 1960 was near 15$. Today, people are concerned that that the price has rise to almost 6$. (Figures taken from the Chicago Board of Trade.) While the supply of wheat has increased somewhat due to an increased number of acres being planted, this is far outstripped by the increased demand by the billions of more mouths to feed. The most important cause in the greater available supply of wheat is certainly technological innovation. New strands of wheat that produce more grain, are more resistant to disease, and can grow in more places are the result of many years of talented individuals' research. Had it not been for these innovations, one might assume that there would be more starvation in the world than there presently is.
And speaking of wealth, don't the people who made these technological innovations deserve some kind of reward for their products? I don't think a mere fuzzy feeling or pat on the back really suffices when millions or even billions of people are demanding your product. If you can create a product that is worth billions of dollars, and you've earned your wealth, who is to say that you are too rich? What you choose to do with your money is, of course, and entirely different question.
Many things considered, those who we (the Carleton community) might say are too rich achieved their vast wealth by creating a product or offering a service that improved the lives of the many people who made their wealth possible. The only exception to this that I can think of is by possessing some scarce commodity that is in the hands of small group of people. This is, however, an excellent opportunity. I would guess that the person who creates a viable alternative to fossil fuels will become very affluent as a result of their invention. Even if this person is a trillionaire (a word that does not yet exist in my browser's dictionary) I wouldn't describe them as being too rich - they've earned that money by first doing the world a great deal of good.
The question we seem to be dealing with is not "how rich is too rich?" but "what behaviors classify someone as too rich and others as generous." I would argue that in this day and age, those who are 'too rich', with a few exceptions, are there because of their own ingenuity and the invaluable service they provided to society.
From this article, it seems as though the 'rich' should give as much is necessary to prevent a revolution:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-super-rich-at-davos-40-years-of-disaster-2011-01-25?pagenumber=2
In response to Matt's point, I think it's great that you pointed out a weak spot in my word choice. I should clarify that I meant 'relative' poverty instead of absolute 'poverty', as Prof. Hemesath pointed out.
Also, although we shouldn't undermine the importance of compensating hard-work and ingenuity, it's important to note the role of the system that allows us to 'work hard' and invent things in exchange for large profits.
We are arbitrarily born into a class/country with enough (or not enough) resources (i.e. infrastructure, access to education, a family that supports your education). The arbitrary system (capitalism) that we've espoused privileges certain people over others, notably those with capital.
An analogy would be like "White, American college students deserve to be admitted on the basis of their high SAT scores, as they've worked hard to get their scores to where they are".
Yes, I agree that those students probably did work hard to get those high scores. However, we need to put it into context- other students who did not do so well- think international students who can't answer a mathematical logic question due to unfamiliarity of dimes and pennies (that was me!), or people of 'color' who aren't culturally privileged as most upper-middle class White students are in the SAT questions.
If it was a level playing field, sure, go ahead, I'll pay you my money for inventing ice cream. But, it's not fair. This system privileges us (with access to education, stable access to electricity, shelter, food etc.) more to be able to do the things to 'earn' us more money, thus the rich get richer and the poor poorer.
I hope that was clear. I'd love to hear your opinions/reactions on this!
[I wrote this over a few days, coming back to read the newer comments, talking to other people about it, and doing a bit of research: this may explain why it's a bit disjointed.]
I don't think there's such a thing as being "too rich." Heather's comment is interesting; I'm going to answer in the negative: you cannot be absolutely wealthy. The very word--rich--implies wealth beyond what others have. So there will always be those who are more wealthy than others; morally condemning them seems petty: if what you expect of them is to give it all away, until they pass some indeterminate line between "too rich" and "rich enough" or "less rich", then someone else will become "too rich."
Certainly, I can imagine a world where everyone takes a (e.g.) $100 salary, and is only allowed to save $1,000, and every person takes the same train to the factories we all have a share in, managed by egalitarian computers. But if such a world were to exist, rather than all be equal, we would all be slaves to each other, and to the system. Also, it doesn't work (see: history).
Do people with six-figure salaries, millions in the bank, etc., have a moral obligation to give some of that wealth away? Is Sam G., who works 100 hours a week in a hospital and just paid off his medical school debts and supports his mother and father who are both disabled and retired, a bad human being if, after taxes and such, keeps his $150k/yr in profit for himself? He is likely to invest much of it (this is a good deed in itself, whether or not he makes money, I'd argue), and spend more of it (also good). Does whether or not he donates to charities make him a good or bad person?
Similarly, is Jason K. a bad person if he slacks, works 35 hours a week at a crummy job (even though he's got a degree and the ability to go to medical school) and makes $17k/yr after taxes? He doesn't have any to give away (though he could work harder to have more to give away), and draws from the social safety net of his country, as well as drawing on the benefits of his company to treat his high cholesterol (he only eats at McD's as a result of his lower income and his inability to cook). If Sam is morally in the wrong, then surely Jason is too, right? But what about those who *cannot* work, or just don't have the ability to work due to things beyond their control?
The idea of responsibility to humankind is a tenuous one: we're all uncomfortable with the idea of everyone acting as free agents. Those people are sociopaths, by definition. They're bad. So we have government, laws, international laws, etc. Sometimes we don't think those are "enough", so we assign moral value to actions based on intangible feelings: "it's not *fair* that someone should have so much more than someone else". We do this across all sorts of boundaries: we compare the richest in the first world to the poorest in the third. It just doesn't seem right for someone to be flying in a private jet to vacation in a tropical climate while someone is starving on the streets downtown.
But is it any more right to require that our jet-setting executive to be earthbound until everyone else is as wealthy? Or even just with a job/cared for? The world doesn't move up in harmony; it moves in jerky steps. (A great, fun, video). Max's video is also an excellent look at a reason why this may be happening.
Another pointed question: how do we know that requiring people to give up their money is even a good idea? I think, more often than not, that money is put to use poorly. Social security, for instance. Medicare is terribly administrated. Much of our US tax dollars goes to policing other nations. Money sent to purchase grain feed Africans, for example, destroys their local agriculture business and dooms even more people to poverty. (For a billion examples, Google: food aid destroying african agriculture).
Unfortunately I need to better myself by doing some math homework, but in short: I agree with the sentiment here that education is key here. Proper, informed allocation of wealth (and voluntary, too: I manage my own wealth better than others do, e.g.) will lead to a gentler world. As the rich grow richer, many of them grow more empathetic as their immediate needs are no longer something to worry about (see Max's video, then look into what B. Gates, P. Allen, W. Buffet, the dude who runs Virgin Enterprises, M. Zuckerberg, etc. are doing: informed, well-directed allocations of their massive wealth.) When people's autonomy is threatened, we revert to our baser instincts: protect, fight, defend. I think that an improved world will come from a freer, more intelligent world.
Can riches buy happiness? "A Princeton University study finds that money makes people more satisfied with their lives overall, but doesn't make them happier day-to-day above $75,000" according to this article posted by Inc.com. Perhaps above $75,000 is “too rich”.
I am enjoying this discussion very much. People have pointed out, rightly, that a full solution to the massive income inequality in the world demands change at an institutional level.
Nonetheless, I feel like people are side-stepping the central challenge. As Ted Kinnaman put it, "the question...has to do not with legal requirements or taxation, but just with the moral obligations of individuals."
So, the challenge is just this: almost all of us in America find ourselves with disposal income now and then. We often do things like buy a new TV, or an iPod or a new guitar etc. Isn't doing so morally objectionable when *that very money*, while not being able to solve global income inequality, could (and very likely would if given to the right charity) save the life of someone in desperate need? What possible justification could there be for choosing to buy the luxury good?
This is basically the challenge that Peter Singer puts to us in the article Ted mentioned. You can also find a version of it in Singer's latest book.
I think the answer to “How rich is too rich?” is best answered by asking, “How poor is too poor?” Rich is a vague, relative word that allows for infinite distinctions to be made between shades of wealth. “Too poor” can be quantified and is very real. In absolute terms, you’re too poor if you don’t have access to clean drinking water; you’re too poor if you don’t have adequate daily nourishment. From there we can build up and give more specific answers. For instance, you might say, you’re too poor in the USA if you don’t have a reliable means to get to work. Whether that means not having bus fare in a city, or not having a car in a rural area doesn’t matter - you’re too poor to get to work. And once we’ve recognized that someone is too poor, we’ve got to do something about it. We don’t have to address the question of someone else’s richness directly. But, by addressing someone’s poorness, someone else’s richness may be affected. A way to end the urban poorness that makes it too expensive for a person to get to work may be to tax those who aren’t too poor and lower the cost of public transportation. This would, for this specific example, reduce the poor person’s poorness, perhaps to a point where they wouldn’t be too poor, just poor.
I'm so excited to see this conversation happening here!
This is a great site with a lot of resources for folks thinking about this question: www.enoughenough.org
Their name is "Enough: The Personal Politics of Resisting Capitalism"
I wanted to post the well-articulated series of questions that introduce the site's purpose, but you can't paste in here! I think there are good ideas on this site for getting back to the question of the choices we make individually about money- and a lot of concrete ideas.
Best wishes to all,
Angie
It's been noted by Professor Groll and Ted Kinnamen that the fundamental issue underlying the question of "How rich is too rich?" is the question "Are we morally obligated to give to those less fortunate than ourselves?", and this is indeed the problem we've been trying to resolve. Yet, I think an important distinction needs to be made here; with the latter question phrased as such we're essentially speaking of what's justifiable and what isn't, and this is not necessarily the same as what's good and what isn't. I may be justified in spending my whole life amassing capital without ever giving away a dime but this might not be helping me to achieve the highest aims of human existence - it might not be good for me. Alternatively, I might find myself giving away all of my wealth out of a sense of moral obligation to the point of destitution, but this probably won't help me so much either. This is not to say that issues of justification and moral obligation are irrelevant - these are absolutely important for us to think about - but rather to make clear the difference between these issues and the issue of that which is good for us as human beings to do.
I offer up a consideration of the latter here: "Should we as citizens of the first world being giving away more of our wealth? Would we be better off for it?". We can think of all individuals as having a set of values, which themselves correspond to desires. The fulfillment of these desires in large part corresponds to their happiness. Not all such moral orientations are equally conducive to human happiness. Generally speaking, we can envision two types of these sets of values - one more heavily directed towards external goods (e.g. wealth, status, power), and one more heavily directed towards internal goods (e.g. happiness, fulfillment, well-being). The former such orientation seems to me ultimately to be a confusion of a means for an end. The possession external goods, in themselves, does not equate to a good life for the possessor. We all have knowledge, whether personally, through the media, or through narrative, of the lives of those rich in external goods, and I think we can rather definitively say of these men and women that such goods do not render them immune to misery. On the contrary, those brimming with internal goods are by definition well and thus at the very least more resilient to misery than are those possessed of external goods, if not secure from it entirely.
This is not to say that external goods are worth nothing; they are valuable in that they provide us with the opportunity to pursue internal goods. It would most certainly extend beyond the scope of this post for me to comment on the means by which we as human beings can most effectively pursue internal goods, or in other words, achieve for ourselves a good life.
However, I will suggest that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the giving away of one's wealth, whether as sizeable a portion as Singer suggests or less, is not necessarily at odds with our own self-interest - provided it is directed towards internal goods. (Note that giving and sharing are exercises that the wise have often recommended as healthy for human beings) There's also an important issue here that remains to be addressed. It is possible for one to be of the opinion that they should give away a considerable portion of their wealth (either because they feel obligated to or because they think it good for themselves), and yet to keep that portion all the same. This could be another dimension of the question worth exploring.
As a final thought, I'd like to point out that there is a difference between giving out of a sense of obligation or guilt - giving because one feels they ought to or have to - and giving out of a genuine concern for one's fellow human being. I could only imagine that the latter of these two is a healthier act, and I think that this, too, is an issue worth investigating as we contemplate the relinquishing of one's wealth for the sake of those less fortunate than ourselves.
When I think of the term "embarrassment of riches" I think of the social awkwardness manifests itself when an income/wealth disparity really expose itself between myself and a confederate. When we care about or empathize with someone I think this term comes into play because its hard for us to connect when financial realities create such a gap in our living experiences. A person who is forced to eat the cheapest of foods, say someone who just cannot afford to eat anything by fastfood, is going to have a very difficult time relating to a foodie who only eats organic food cooked by the hottest new chef. It is not that one experience is better, or more real, but they come about through different styles of living. Differences often accompanied with severe differences in areas other then just access to capital (though the root of these differences can easily by dependent on money matters). In one way you might say that financial access prevents my first hypothetical person from self-actualizing. There are few options available to her, and she may not be able to make the choices she really wants. So would being "rich-enough" mean that you have enough money to self-actualize? But of course what does that mean? And should we define it, as say, the ability to fulfill your desires, isn't that point dependent on the person, and even on an individual basis is it ever a static point?
When I think of the term "embarrassment of riches" I think of the social awkwardness that manifests itself when an income/wealth disparity really exposes itself between a confederate and myself. When we care about or empathize with someone I think this term comes into play because it is hard for us to connect when financial realities create such a gap in our living experiences. A person who is forced to eat the cheapest of foods, say someone who cannot afford to eat anything but fast food, is going to have a very difficult time relating to a foodie who only eats organic food cooked by the hottest new chef in town. It is not that one experience is better, or more real, but these come about through very different styles of living. These differences are often accompanied with severe differences in areas of life other then just access to capital (though the root of these differences can easily be dependent on money matters). In one way you might say that finances prevent my first hypothetical person from self-actualizing. There are few options available to her, and she may not be able to make the choices she really wants. So would being "rich-enough" mean that she has enough money to self-actualize? But of course what does that mean? And should we define it, as say, the ability to fulfill your desires, isn't that ability dependent on the person, and even on an individual basis is it ever a static definable point?
I think you cannot define the "enough" in the question we're considering. Indeed the “rich” is contentious, but I think, if we're asking how rich is rich enough; we can accept that the "enough" is safely within the definition.
I would go on to say that that "rich" is hardly a natural state. It is construct of a value system, one that we project onto the world on an individual basis, influenced by a mutually shared one. Since rich exists in these confines, and our confines are capitalist, I would look for the “enough” in capitalism, and its propagator the field of economics. Since the era of Jagdish Bhagwati economics has promoted a capitalist system adhering to the "grow the pie" strategy. Which essentially means, and you can ask anyone in this field, that more is better. There is no "enough" in this world, we cannot agree on what "enough" is. Individuals may have personal thoughts, but the default global consensus is that, because we can't agree on what "enough" is, there is no "enough."
If you asked me what “enough” means to me, I would say I cannot tell you what it looks like. Perhaps, like porno, I could tell you when I see/experience it, but that's pretty much true of everything. I'll let you guys know what enough is if/when I ever get there.
Peter (who has clearly been reading and enjoying Aristotle!) makes a very nice point. The unspoken assumption in The Question and in many of the posts to this point is that giving away a portion of our money is a kind of self-sacrifice: it is something we ought to do for the good of others, even though it may detract from our own good.
Peter is right to reject this assumption. The strong way to reject it, hints of which are found in Peter's post, is to embrace the Socratic/Platonic doctrine that it is always in your self-interest to do what one ought morally ought to do. Most people these days find that an implausible view (although there is perhaps more going for it than people realize. Anyone interested in looking at a contemporary defense of the view might look at Chapter 6 of Philippa Foot's Natural Goodness.).
The weaker way to reject the assumption that giving away a portion, perhaps even a sizable portion, of one's income is a form of self-sacrifice is simply to suggest that we can have what really makes for a good life -- a life filled with love, knowledge, friendship, creativity etc. -- with far less than what we have now. In fact, we might think that one way of making sense of the idea of having "too much" is that there's a point at which accumulation of wealth gets in the way of pursuing what is really good: a confusion of means for ends, as Peter nicely puts it, results. So, a proper answer to the The Question involves reflecting seriously on what matters in life, not only the lives of those who are in desperate need, but also in our lives.
In light of this, I want to return to Hunter's comment above. Hunter says that:
I think that there is also a certain amount of value to being able to live a life that you want to live, and if that means a new television, then that argument can, to some extent, be used here. There's a limit to how much it can be used, but I do think that making your entire life miserly to save other lives cannot be the only possible solution.
This is surely right (although even here there is room for debate. Is it really so easy to say why you should count your life or ends as worth more in deciding what to do than anyone else's?). Even so, we need to be careful about constructing a strawman: most of us have a long way to go before giving away what we had would come anywhere close to making our lives miserable. This seems particularly true in light of Peter's comment. So one can still think that we ought to give far far more than we do (either of our time or money or both) without thinking that we are obligated to make ourselves miserable.
I have been following the discussion for some time now, and am very much enjoying it.
That being said, I would like to pose a different take on the question.
Prof. Hemesath pointed out that this system of acquiring wealth does not have to be a zero-sum game. And I would absolutely agree. My concern is that it often is. I would argue that before we enter into discussions of wealth distribution and institutional change, we need to ask first, "How are we getting rich?"
As the system currently exists (and has existed for centuries), wealth is very often made at the expense of others. And this is my concern. Money, as we all know, can do wonderful things - it can send people to college, build institutions, fund development projects, provide people with health care, etc.
But where is that money coming from? Companies, and therefore investors, often profit at the expense of others. Coca-Cola makes billions of dollars for its investors, but it also faces serious allegations of worker abuse, union intimidation (contract killing of union leaders), and environmental degradation. Mining companies makes billions for their investors, but often at the expense of indigenous communities and the environment. Some corporations have been buying water rights, allowing them to charge (usually impoverished) communities for the right to water. Cotton, tobacco, coffee, and chocolate are often harvested by slave and/or child labor. The same is often true with mineral extraction. In the Congo, access to coltan and other precious minerals often comes through the funding of rebel groups who are responsible for the violent rape and abuse of surrounding communities. Chemical companies like Dow are responsible for severe environmental degradation, and yet their cost-benefit analysis shows it is cheaper to avoid clean-up. The list goes on.
Let me be clear, all of this makes money. Not paying workers makes money. Charging for water makes money. Not having unions makes money. Not taking responsibility for environmental disasters that affect the lives and health of citizens and the environment makes money. It makes money for corporations, but it also makes money for everyday investors and institutions who have these corporations in their portfolios.
I would argue, then, that any time profit comes at the expense of another human being or the environment, that wealth is too much. The way in which we are acquiring riches must be discussed before we begin to talk about measuring and/or redistributing said wealth.
Just one more thing to consider!