Rachel Lu · October 2, 2012 at 8:35pm

Americans seem to be losing a lot of sleep these days trying to decide how they feel about rich people. It seems to me that both liberal and conservative reasoning gets a little tortuous on this point.

In the abstract liberals hate rich people, but in practice they seem to love them, particularly the uber-wealthy (Hollywood stars, George Soros, etc.) who bankroll their favored causes and political campaigns. Conservatives, for their part, say lots of nice things about the rich when we’re discussing taxes and wealth redistribution. On the other hand, whenever we move to the subject of family life, they are quick to pour accusations of greed and materialism on those who puzzle about how to secure a solid income without neglecting caretaking obligations. 

I thought it might be interesting, therefore, to approach the question directly. What is the relationship between virtue and wealth? I suspect that there are some ways in which virtue correlates positively to wealth, and other ways in which it correlates negatively.

On the positive end, industry and creativity make it easier to achieve financial success. In general, one must exercise great discipline in order to become rich. Also, the ambitious will need to avoid certain obvious mistakes. Addiction, a messy divorce, or a brush with the law can easily derail the grandest and best-laid of plans. Prudent financial management helps enormously, too. In general, then, we will find that people who amass great wealth are capable, productive, disciplined and able to make sensible life choices.

Now, let’s look at the negative side. I think the plain fact is that generosity and self-sacrifice tend not to propel people to the top. If you want to become fabulously wealthy, you must avoid significant communal or caretaking duties. Don’t have children (or if you must, only have them with a person entirely willing to subordinate other interests to your career); don’t accept an important role within a church or other communal organization; don’t agree to be responsible for ageing parents or grandparents, or others who are sick or vulnerable. Be prepared to sacrifice friendship or other family ties to your career. Also, it probably does help to be a little unscrupulous, if you’re clever about it. Some may protest that honesty is the best policy, but I think the truth is that dishonesty can be quite an asset in temporal affairs, if judiciously and carefully applied. I’ve known more than one person whose potentially glamorous career was dashed on the rocks of too much integrity.

Conservatives love to believe that virtue is rewarded in the natural order of things. This is sometimes true, but frequently untrue, and I think it’s important that we not shy away from the fact that vice is often rewarded in our society, and virtue punished. Not every (socially and morally) healthy choice “pays off” in terms of temporal success, and this should concern us, because it affects people’s choices in a negative way. (Parenthood is the obvious example of something that is not incentivized in our current system, which nonetheless is vitally important to our society’s survival). I think, for the most part, that we cling to the axiom that “the righteous will prosper” as our best line of defense against calls for government intervention. But, of course, government intervention is not the only effective means to creating social change. I think we conservatives could potentially be more consistent in our values if we were more prepared to criticize the rich.

Comments:


The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

I think Romney and Soros provide the perfect examples of the positive and negative relationships between virtue and wealth. On the one hand you have Mitt Romney who is a paragon of virtue and somehow managed to do all the things you recommend not doing to to increase wealth like having a large family and being involved in faith. On the other hand you have George Soros who is also very wealthy, but, from what I can tell, is pure conentrated evil.

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

I don't believe there is a correlation between virtue and riches. The most virtuous man I've ever known--my father--was not rich, though he shepherded his possessions prudently. And, of course, we can all cite fat-cat plutocrats who are anything but virtuous.

The opposite is likewise true. I know some evil poor people. And there are rich people who give and give.  Jon Huntsman's father is a rich man.  He funded the Huntsman Cancer Center (a superb cancer hospital) and many other charitable endeavors. I know little about what's in his heart, but by all accounts he is a good man. [Note: I'm not a fan of his son].

The idea that virtue is its own reward is true, but only in the long, long term, as in "eternally." I live with the trust that all will be made right in the end.  Those who believe that virtue in this life is always rewarded with material riches in this life are simply blind.  

Finally, in the end, the question is what will you do with what you have.  Some of the rich do little and the poor do a lot--and vice versa.

Edited on October 2, 2012 at 8:06pm
Palaeologus
Joined
Jul '10
Palaeologus

Rachel, this reminds me of the (also excellent) post by Crow's Nest in which he linked an exceptional forty year old essay by Irving Kristol.

Your post is more narrowly tailored, here is a relevant bit from that essay:

...it was taken for granted that there
was a connection between what he did
and what he was—between his vocation
and his character—a connection that
intimated a code of behavior which
defined what was "honorable" and what
was not. Thus, it was thought to be
dishonorable for a businessman to go
bankrupt—not because this was a sign of
failure, but because it meant that he was
cheating his creditors, who had trusted
him. And if a businessman did go
bankrupt, it was thought honorable for
him to spend the rest of his life paying off
his creditors nevertheless—and for his
children to assume this burden as well.
This may not make any economic sense;
our present casual and impersonal
attitude toward bankruptcy might be
more economically productive. But it did
emphatically make political sense—if you
believe that the effects of economics on
our standard of living are less momentous
than its effects upon our character.

Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

Virtue does not make you rich.  Being rich certainly does not make you virtuous.

Virtue can help you feel more content with the wealth that you do have.  It often means you may have more friends than money.  There was a British TV series that contrasted a retired police officer who stayed honest with the widow of a higher ranked officer who was corrupt.  The honest cop has an old car, and a booth on the beach at Brighton, and old fellow officers who are happy to see him and to visit him.  The widow has a beautiful house and a lovely garden, and no one visits or calls.

There was a Hollywood producer who during the Depression had a Thanksgiving Dinner for struggling actors & film crew.  He also gave away a new suit and a good pair of shoes to everyone who came - a real boon in hard times.  Just ask the few remaining people who grew up then.

How much money did he give away?  How wealthy was he after giving it all away?  How many friends did he have? 

Edward Smith
Joined
May '12
Edward Smith

James Thurber wrote of a grand-uncle who ran a grocery store and tried his hand at bringing in fresh produce packed in ice.  The shipment was sidelined and lost, and his uncle spent years afterwards paying off all of the friends & neighbors who invested in his plan.  he did so to his own detriment, in fact.

Thurber recounts that some of the neighbors thought this was excessive.  An investment is a gamble, after all.

There is Virtue to idea of partial payments after bankruptcy.

Palaeologus: Rachel, this reminds me of the (also excellent) post by Crow's Nest in which he linked an exceptional forty year old essay by Irving Kristol.

Your post is more narrowly tailored, here is a relevant bit from that essay:

Thus, it was thought to be
dishonorable for a businessman to go
bankrupt—not because this was a sign of
failure, but because it meant that he was
cheating his creditors, who had trusted
him. And if a businessman did go
bankrupt, it was thought honorable for
him to spend the rest of his life paying off
his creditors nevertheless—and for his
children to assume this burden as well.

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

I am in a fairly unique situation regarding the wealthy and ultra wealthy of whom I have known hundreds.   Many have private jets, 200 ft yachts, and in some cases, islands.   Most have foundations. I have found most of them to be very generous to charity although some like it very well known, there are others who keep it extremely hidden.  Morally, they are no better or worse than average people and have the same set of problems minus paying the rent and light bill.

What I say for sure is that if you make war on them they will fight and it won't work out well for everyone who benefits from the trickle down.  California will lose another group quite soon if they persist in their asinine stance.  Our country has already lost some and more will follow if the buffoon is voted in again.  

You can have integrity, kindness, great morals  and get fabulously wealthy.  I have many examples of this.

EThompson
Joined
Dec '11
EThompson

As noted earlier on this thread, there is always a wide disparity of virtue among people in all socio-economic walks of life. I will note, however, that as the majority of the wealth in this country is earned, not inherited, those who succeed financially do share one important virtue- industriousness.

EJHill
Joined
May '10
EJHill

It used to be that most would rather hold on to the possibility of become rich themselves than succumb to the level of envy that comes with a call for redistributive "justice." Now, more people look to the state lottery than their own cleverness or hard work as the path to riches.

She
Joined
Dec '10
She

Does virtue make you rich?

Yes, in everything that matters.

On the other hand, it's certainly true, as my mother was fond of saying, that "money can't buy happiness, but at least you can be miserable in comfort."

Edited on October 2, 2012 at 9:17pm
sawatdeeka
Joined
Nov '10
sawatdeeka

Excellent essay, Rachel.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing

As a practical matter, some wealth is a precondition for virtue.  To develop virtue fully, one must first escape necessity.

How much material wealth is needed to escape necessity? Most people cannot practice virtue if every minute must be spent satisfying bodily needs for food and shelter. On the other hand, widespread or excessive luxury can corrupt some people.

The form of the American polity encourages wealth creation, and material well-being, and thereby succeeds in freeing most of us from desperate necessity so we are free to pursue virtue. But the American polity also  leaves individuals free to decide whether to use that freedom to pursue virtue or more wealth or to watch TV, or some combination thereof.

The Western commercial republic, unlike most regimes (theocratic regimes), does not aim at producing  citizens in a particular model of virtue or any model of virtue.

The American polity does purposefully channel ambition (glory seeking) toward wealth creation and away from destructive ambition, which raises material conditions generally and makes us disinclined to war and conquest, which is all for the good. Thus, we tend to celebrate the captains of industry equally with, or more than, the captains of the battlefield.

Edited on October 2, 2012 at 10:15pm
Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12
Rachel Lu

Thanks, all! I would agree that it is possible to become rich without sacrificing integrity, but the cards have to fall just right. I said that a little unscrupulousness (cleverly applied) tends to help, and I think that's true, but it isn't a necessary prerequisite. Nor is it essential to have grossly distorted priorities. Not everyone, after all, needs to be a caretaker, and we might hopefully speculate that people like Romney would have been willing to sacrifice success for friendship or family or integrity. In his case, it may simply not have been necessary. But, as my post reflects, it does seem likely to me that there are meaningful trends that we could chart, showing the rich to "have it together" more than the poor, while the very rich in particular might tend exhibit some vices of their own. The very poor, in a society such as ours, certainly do have their characteristic vices, and many are barely functional. A legacy of the welfare state.

thelonious
Joined
May '11
thelonious

Eye of the beholder.  If I had a business partner who worked 100 hours a week to make our business successful, I would view his hard work as a virtue.  I would say he has a strong work ethic.  His wife and kids would probably call him a workaholic and view it as a vice. 

No Caesar
Joined
Feb '11
No Caesar

Rachel Lu:

Now, let’s look at the negative side. I think the plain fact is that generosity and self-sacrifice tend not to propel people to the top. If you want to become fabulously wealthy, you must avoid significant communal or caretaking duties. Don’t have children (or if you must, only have them with a person entirely willing to subordinate other interests to your career); don’t accept an important role within a church or other communal organization; don’t agree to be responsible for ageing parents or grandparents, or others who are sick or vulnerable. Be prepared to sacrifice friendship or other family ties to your career. Also, it probably does help to be a little unscrupulous, if you’re clever about it.

In my experience there is no correlation on these negative traits and wealth.  Some of the most generous (with time and money) people I know are very wealthy.  Dishonesty is a tactic that only provides short-term benefit and wealth is not accrued in the short-term.  People often confuse demanding and hard-charging with selfish and dishonest.  Even when not misassigned, being demanding and hard-charging are often (incorrectly) seen as  negatives.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing
EThompson:  . . . I will note, however, that as the majority of the wealth in this country isearned, notinherited, those who succeed financially do share one important virtue- industriousness.

True about industriousness.

But some might say that having produced one's own wealth tends to make one too fond of it, as we tend to be most fond of things that are our own production (our own children, our own ideas, etc.)

There's a myth (understandable in a democratic society in which wealth is highly mobile and being "a regular guy" is a highly praised characteristic) that those who produced their own "new money" are more generous, and generally more virtuous, than those who have inherited "old money."

I have a little bit of "new money," and bump into quite a few who have new money and quite a few who have old money. In my experience those with "old money" tend to be much less possessive of it and much less ostentatious. People with new money, having earned it themselves, tend to be proud of it and therefore are more inclined to want to show it off.  (To say this in a democracy is punishable as mortal sin!)

Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12
Rachel Lu

I don't know what it means to say that wealth is "earned" and "produced". Does it simply mean that the person acquired it legally? That's often true, but doesn't tell us much since the laws might not be good, and even if they are, no legal system pretends to bring about perfect and complete justice. Does it mean that the person produced all that on their own? No, obviously not. Nobody makes a vast fortune without the help of many (much less well-paid) employees or co-workers. Does it mean the wealth would not have been created but for that person's efforts? That's probably frequently untrue, and it's nearly always impossible to prove. Others might have filled the gap if that person hadn't done so; in some cases, they almost certainly would have. Distributive justice is very, very hard to get one's head around.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing
No Caesar . . . Some of the most generous (with time and money) people I know are very wealthy.   . . .

Because they can afford to be . . . which supports my rather obvious point that some amount of wealth is necessary for virtue, at least for the Christian virtue of charity: If you must spend every moment earning enough to satisfy your own physical material needs, you will have no time or money with which to be generous.

Rachel Lu
Joined
Apr '12
Rachel Lu

I support your point, Astonishing, but also, I simply don't believe that integrity always pays. In temporal terms, that is. If you get quietly sidelined in a law firm because you won't pad your hours, is that just a failure to be "demanding"? If you refuse to let a little insider trading slide in order to keep that top executive position, is that "hard-charging"? People have made a lot of money on dishonesty in this country. The OWSers had that much right, anyway.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing
Rachel Lu: I don't know what it means to say that wealth is "earned" and "produced". Does it simply mean that the person acquired it legally?  . . . Nobody makes a vast fortune without the help of many (much less well-paid) employees or co-workers.  . . .

I don't think this is a complicated problem, except in some highly abtracted sense.

For example, I suppose you yourself can pretty well identify what portion of your wealth you earned yourself and how much you acquired in some other way. (I have no difficulty including as "earned" and "produced" whatever you might have acquired though investments. )

If this actually is more than an abstract problem for you, if you are bothered that there might be some portion of your wealth that you have not earned, you can solve that problem easily by giving it away. So you see even if the question is a complicated problem, it is not one difficult to solve.

But I suspect your contemplation of this subject will not substantially increase your charitable giving. If it does, then that's all the better! Please remember to make your additional donations in my honor, as    the inspiration of your generosity.

Astonishing
Joined
Nov '11
Astonishing
Rachel Lu: I support your point, Astonishing, but also, I simply don't believe that integrity always pays. In temporal terms, that is. If you get quietly sidelined in a law firm because you won't pad your hours, is that just a failure to be "demanding"? If you refuse to let a little insider trading slide in order to keep that top executive position, is that "hard-charging"? People have made a lot of money on dishonesty in this country. The OWSers had that much right, anyway.

The answer is:

"Virute is its own reward."

Or to the same effect, but put another way, as my momma like to say it:

"No good deed goes unpunished."


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In