The Giving-Gap

I had a recent argument with a young conservative woman; you know, one of those basic arguments of left-wing economics vs. right-wing economics. I took the position of a Keynesian rather than a socialist or anarchist because, like many Americans, this individual's idea of the right-left political spectrum went from Right-wing libertarianism to Left-liberal, and any mention of the word "socialism" by me would be met with ridicule and most likely a refusal to seriously listen for many reasons. The word "anarchism" would probably be met with even more ridicule, and the label "libertarian socialism" would probably sound to her to be an insane oxymoron. Sometimes you have to break it in first by proving that even within the realm of capitalism, we can do a hell of a lot better; this task is easy enough, and is, most of the time, the only way to get someone from today's right to even listen to an argument from the left because there are a wealth of examples from modern American history you can use for support. Indeed, many of the instances I noticed her attention drift off in the discussion are when I brought up historical examples from other countries, like the southern cone of South America or India, for my support. In any case, this argument was easy enough, all I really had to do was illustrate when the US economy did well and when it didn't (such as right now), and show what our economic policies and trends were at whichever period, for example: progressive taxation, strict regulation, and large union membership during the long post-war period of unparalleled prosperity and economic stability (World War II to the mid 1970's); low taxes on the wealthy, mass deregulation, and union busting from the 1980's to the present, a period when wages have not risen (and actually fell for most of us) and the perpetuation of financial crisis after crisis dominates.

In any case, one thing that this individual brought up, kind of as a "secret weapon," to prove that the wealthy are benevolent and would do more for society than the public sector if they were just allowed to, was the fact that she knows, personally, and knows of many wealthy people who give "millions, even BILLIONS" of dollars to charity all the time. I once heard this argument from Glenn Beck on his now-defunct Fox News show, where in a "discussion" (the kind that only Fox News can do) with the head of the American Communist Party he bragged about how much money he gave to charity annually. I don't remember how much it was, maybe like 20%, something like double what the CP leader's annual charitable contribution was. Of course, the CP leader's salary was like less than $20,000 a year, while Beck is a multi-millionaire.

Now, there are many obvious flaws with any argument by the right or the wealthy centering around how much money they give to charity, usually brought up when responding to the topic of progressive taxation. I do believe that if you give money to charity, no matter how much money you make, you are doing a great and noble service to humanity. And I always assumed that the rich, because they have money to spare whereas the poor have hardly enough money to survive, gave more money. Maybe even in proportion. I think especially of people like Bill Gates, this sort of ruthless-CEO-turned-philanthropist, who is giving away his whole life's massive fortune before he dies to many worthy causes. Obviously, you can only become one of the world's richest men by being one of the world's most exploitative men; after all, this is capitalism. But the fact that he's working to give it all away is enough to redeem Mr. Gates in my eyes, and I will always respect him more than the late Steve Jobs, who gave hardly nothing and hoarded his multi-billion dollar fortune, built by child labor in Southeast Asia, to his grave.

However, I recently discovered that actually, the argument that the rich give more to charity is a complete falsehood. The rich don't give more than the middle class nor the poor, in fact, many studies show that the average amount of giving between the rich and the poor are almost indistinct, and proportionally the rich actually give less than the poor. This is not a new story, just new to me, and I'm sure many already people know it so forgive my ignorance. But obviously many people don't know it. Indeed, the fact that there is a wide "giving-divide" between the rich and the not-rich has been well known and well-studied for decades now, so I'm really late to the party. In any case, in a 2001 study carried out by Independent Sector, a non-profit that studies charitable contributions, households with incomes under $25,000 annually gave away an average of 4.2% of their income, whilst households earning more than $75,000 gave away, on average, only 2.7%.

So why is this the case? Aren't we all good people? Aren't the rich just good people with more money? In my opinion, in essence, yes. But for the wealthy, there seems to be a problem with solidarity between classes, and probably just as prevalent a factor is how, or what kind of mentality, in a capitalist society, you need have or acquire in order to become wealthy. A New York Times Magazine article from August 10th, 2010 entitled "The Charitable-Giving Divide" expands on this question briefly, and cites a study done by University of California Berkeley social psychologist Dr. Paul K. Piff, that shows that the poor are "more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than were those with more wealth. They were more attuned to the needs of others and more committed generally to the values of egalitarianism," whilst the rich "clung to values that 'prioritized their own need.'"

The rich "clung to values that 'prioritized their own need.'" This is how you become rich, after all. Maybe not in every case; in rare cases, some just get lucky, and in rarer cases, some get wealthy through hard back-breaking work. Many are just born rich (only something like 5% of people who are rich came from a poor background in America), but if an individual is raised in a wealthy family, s/he is likely to be taught and conditioned with those very values of pure-self-interest, whether by their wealthy parents or by the their wealthy community.

The poor and the disenfranchised, on the other hand, know what it's like to be poor and disenfranchised.  How could you not give to those in need if you are able to put yourself in their shoes? To not do so would require one to be void of empathy.

Today we live in a world run by the uber-rich, this indisputable. In today's world we have record amounts of productivity but at the same time, in a phenomenon that would seem impossible just 35 years ago, we have record poverty. People are working more and more for less and less. This is the world ruled by the wealthy. Now tell me: Do you think a world run by the working class could be any worse? A world run by those who know what it's like to be down-trodden, a world run by those who feel for the down-trodden: A world run by those, the majority of us, who would, and always have, sacrificed their own meager resources to help others who are in just as great of need. Empathy. Egalitarianism. Giving. These are principles we must strive for a better world, principles of which those of us who work and live as wage-slaves on the perpetual hamster-wheel, expected to take part in, but reject blind consumerism and religious zealotry, live by.

Which world would be better?

The myth about Unions and the Free Market; some other updates

Of course, I don't believe in the "free" market for so many reasons it's hard to count. Nor do I believe that any sort of right-wing libertarianism has any actual propensity toward liberty (though I do believe that there are many right-wing libertarians who are sincere, just wholly misguided), as capitalism and liberty are natural enemies of each other, contradictory to each other by definition. However, I found this post from a right-wing libertarian blog entitled "Liberty for All" to be very interesting. It discusses an issue I have always wondered about (to an extent), about why so-called free marketeers  believe that unions are a scourge to the market and should not be allowed to participate; that workers should never be allowed to assemble, use their power in numbers (the only power they have) to collectively bargain for better wages, benefits, safety conditions, and generally higher standards of living and working. What principle of right-wing libertarianism does this concept go against? Isn't liberty supposed to be first and foremost (in theory) to these people? How, then, is it unacceptable for workers to freely associate and organize?

I only wonder about this issue to an extent, because, well, my impression is that right-wing libertarianism in practice is just hardcore capitalism, which means it is inevitably supportive of corporatism, and thus really has nothing to do with liberty. But in the realm of philosophy and theory, there is a contradiction, which the post at "Liberty for All" addresses. The right wing should have nothing against unionism, as they should theoretically be "Part of the Market," which the blogger elaborates on. Every right-winger who happens to stumble upon my page should take the time out and read this piece.


"Unions: Part of the Market" - Liberty for All (Blog)




Anyways, I know I haven't updated in a little bit, I've been quite busy and well, the truth is I do have a bunch of half written or nearly complete posts but I just keep going back and adding to them over and over again until I realize that they are either going in a direction I no longer want them to or are overly exhausting to read. I feel that I am in the middle of the realization of lots of things I've never thought about or learned about before and its causing a sort of creative and mental paralysis; in other words, I am reformulating my opinions, not in any spectrum-shifting way (don't worry, I'm not turning into a neocon or anything), but more like a deepening way. It is always exciting when you find something new to consider that has the potential for a huge impact on your own core of beliefs.


In any case, there has been a lot of great news as of recently; The day before yesterday saw some great legislative victories for the sensible majority of this country: Probably the most exciting is that the people of Ohio have repealed Republican Governor Kasich's repressive anti-working people legislation, showing the Republican Party and the right that no, it's not OK, we don't support your efforts to destroy our labor rights and to destroy the livelihoods on many hardworking people. This repeal has many implications for the future and it indeed sends a very clear message to Republicans and Conservatives and the whole country: The leftist majority of this country will no longer tolerate this nonsense.


Also sending a signal to the right and very exciting, as well, is the rejection of the anti-choice, anti-contraceptive, anti-religious freedom proposition by the good people of Mississippi. This is certainly a cultural victory and a step toward the right direction, particularly for the South, which, the day before yesterday, showed that it's not made up of just a bunch of intolerant religious zealots. It's also shown that neither is it just made up of xenophobic bigots, as Arizonians recalled and replaced the state legislator who was the self-proclaimed father of the infamously draconian anti-immigration law in the state. Moving over to the west coast, the forces of racial tolerance have also helped to elected San Francisco's first Chinese-American Mayor.

And, of course, up in the Midwest, in my own state of Michigan, we had a successful vote to put Grand Blanc's Republican State Representative Paul Scott's seat in jeopardy, as, by a narrow margin, the voters approved a recall election.

And last, but certainly not least, the reign of Silvio Berlusconi is done for. The people of Italy are now finally free of this corrupt neo-fascist pervert. It was a hard fought battle for them but the fruits of their struggle have finally ripened. 

Lots of good news. World, pat yourself on the back. And then get back to work and fix up the mess you've made in Turkey; two consecutive earthquakes, in the same poor town, less than a month apart? We must always show our solidarity to those who are struggling around the world. Keep the people of Turkey in your hearts.