So you feel guilty, because your father put in the breaking work of creating a business that has made him wealthy? And by breaking, I mean many things. For every successful business, there are a magnitude more that fail. It is a financially risky proposition, as well as a personally psychological and sometimes physical challenge. But people take the risk and stress anyway, because they might end up like your father, and be able to bear the rewards. That business was not magically created, and the money it brings in was not stolen. It was given, by the willful exchange of people for whatever goods or services your father’s business offers. For that, there is absolutely nothing to feel guilty about.

Also, your comments make it sound like you and your father need to have some pow-wow time about the future of the company, and your place (or lack thereof) in it.

@Michael Crosby[162]:

And giving all the poor a million dollars would do nothing other than cause inflation to the point where being a millionaire is considered poor.

As far as feeling guilty. Mea culpa. I’m not rich money wise, but I know I’m rich, if that makes sense. Certainly I have money, but my richness is derived from gratitude. Gratitude for the sun, the air we breathe, my family, and especially the commenters on this board:-) I wonder if I were to become poor (materially) would I not be happy?

I have a few rich relatives. I guess there is some envy there, but I’m surprised at how unhappy one of them is. So the rich I don’t feel a lack, but with the poor, I wish I could give them all a million dollars. (Though I don’t have that:-)

JD, although I did not work for my money, there were many things you said that I immediately related to. Thank you for sharing that with me. I have been guilt ridden all my life and it tears me to pieces.

My brother has made so many poor financial decisions. So out of guilt, I loaned him $65K AND let his entire family move in with me, rent-free. He subsequently quit his job and is doing nothing.

Now I feel like I’ve been taken advantage of, and it was my guilt that put me in this position!

If we are to determine what one ought to feel guilty about, we should determine the root and the ultimate purpose of the emotion. From my perspective, the purpose of guilt is to motivate a person to try to change behavior in the future.

So if a person is successful because of privilege, what useful purpose does guilt have? You don’t want to encourage yourself NOT to read, or not to give your own children opportunities that other children don’t have (like, for example, the opportunity of having good parents!). And truthfully, defining what “privilege” really means, and how much that “privilege” has lead to success rather than hard work or luck is very tough.

It’s good to recognize and try to correct for inequities, especially when they exist because of some kind of privilege rather than hard work, but guilt is the wrong emotion. Most people who get where they’re going with a combination of many factors, and telling those people that they should feel guilty about what privilege may have contributed to their success is putting blame in the wrong place. Instead we should all focus on making society better so that more and more people have access to privileges that help people become more productive (like books and college), and so that things that do not directly contribute to productiveness are no longer treated as privilege (like the color of one’s skin).

I think one source of wealth is worthy of feeling guilty about, another is not.

The first is privilege. Privilege here is defined as something that benefits you, that you don’t have as a result of your own efforts. Morrison #84′s example of brown hair is one case. If brown hair is a tremendous benefit in getting wealth, then it’s a privilege and not an earned item. Examples of wealth-inducing privilege in US society include well-educated parents, being white, growing up in a house full of books, being offered test prep classes, not having to work during the school year. I think this is what tosajen #46 means when ze talks about winning the birth lottery. Since we didn’t do anything to earn these benefits, they’re worth feeling guilty over.

Things that benefit you that come from your work, are earned and not something to be guilty over. Some examples include learning from the good role models around you, making good financial decisions, working hard at what you do no matter what level you start at. If having brown hair were an advantage I guess dying your hair would count as well.

People’s condition is a mix of privilege and work. People without privilege can work hard and do well, people with privilege can waste it entirely. But it’s easier to do well if you have a better starting position.

In my perfect world we’d all have the same starting position; our finishing position would depend on what we do after that.

Do not feel guilty about the tools you have. Instead, use them to build…to the best of your ability.

Justin @152: Society does in fact often determine wages. I am a lawyer in the private sector. I earn much more than friends who are federal prosecutors, state prosecutors, public defenders, federal judges, state judges, nonprofit attorneys and even elected Senators and Congress people who have law degrees. Most of those people work just as hard as I do, they have similar educational backgrounds, and they help society. This is true in many fiends. I am fine being paid more than a janitor, and I agree that my skill set, education and talent should be rewarded to a certain degree. But, I assure you that there isn’t always a rational process regarding how much people are paid.

I also assure you that there are many good charities in addition to Habitat for Humanity. Hundreds of organizations help people help themselves. There is an entire microcredit movement based on this. Other nonprofits don’t really involve “charity” to people — environmental organizations, animal shelters, political campaigns, etc.

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to try to help… on the contrary. But instead of focusing too much on the symptoms, we need to keep our eyes on the underlying problem.

Thank you for your valuable comments. I think you are correct in accepting a certain amount of guilt concerning your over-sized environmental footprint. It is mostly due to resource limitations that so many around the world needlessly suffer.

I recommend that you seriously consider assuaging your guilt a little by simplifying your lifestyle. As I am sure you know, the material surroundings inherent to the “yuppy” lifestyle will not positively impact your well-being, and the well-being of those you care about. Further, if you do have kids some day (and I hope that you do), teaching them about living simply can be the best lesson you can give them, particularly by example. Not only does excessive material consumption lead to environmental problems, it leads to devastating mental conditions, such as materialism. Regardless of how much you inspire people to give back, the hypocracy of living large will undermine you and yours.

I can’t really address much of what you’ve said, because I don’t really agree with most of it. But here are a few points:

“Society” does not determine the wages of a profession. Simple supply and demand do. Anyone with an able body can be a janitor. High supply, low wages. Only highly trained people can be doctors. Low supply, high wages. Obviously, as said before, there are aberrations to this.

The best way to keep kids from being “over-entitled losers” is to instill in them work ethic, not charity. What happens if your children end up un(der)educated and poor? Will they not expect charity then, because that is exactly what they were brought up with? Charity conditions expecting something for nothing; work ethic conditions getting nothing without earning it.

There is one “charity” that I support when I can: Habitat for Humanity. Why? Well, first I go and work, and I learn home construction and maintenance skills which can be applied to my own benefit. Second, they actually require their beneficiaries to earn their home; they do not simply give them away for free. They must help in the construction or rehabilitation of the home, and they must still pay for a mortgage, though it is a small non-profit loan covering H4H’s outlay of funds into the house. By doing this, they instill pride and ownership of the home into their beneficiaries. It is truly THEIR home that they earned, not one that was simply given to them.

1) Give away a lot of money. JD, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of good. Don’t keep waiting to be a philanthropist. And don’t be a baby philanthropist by giving away piddly amounts of $50 or $100 checks when random friends as you to sponsor them or when you go to some charitable event. Give until you actually feel it in your checkbook and your heart. It’s an amazing feeling. Start cutting $1000 checks. Or more! You can give nationally, or you can start making an immediate difference in your own area. I know you love cats. Drive to a nearby animal shelter, ask what they need, and give cash or go buy it (food, medicine, crates, publicity for adoption events, a new kennel, etc). You could save dozens of pets today. Just do it and your giving muscle will grow. You’ll get a high from giving away more than you ever thought you would or could.

2) I let myself feel guilt and I sit with the feeling because I think I SHOULD have some guilt. I don’t believe that any of us “deserve” to have more than our basic needs met. I know that my lifestyle is not sustainable on a global level — the world would explode if every person on it had an American lifestyle. I know that I take more than my fair share from the environment. Even “poor” Americans have countless more luxuries and things that go beyond their true needs than people around the globe. Millions (or billions?) of people still live on less than a dollar a day, die because they don’t have clean water, and lack access to basic healthcare. I earn a lot and live a yuppie lifestyle, but I don’t work harder than a lot of people in other professions that our society has decided should receive a lower wage. So, I feel guilty. And I think I should. It’s not helpful if I let that guilt get debilitating. But, it’s helpful because it reminds me not to take things for granted, that I don’t “deserve” my current lifestyle, and that I need to be giving back all the time. If I ever have children, it will also help me raise them in a way that they don’t end up being over-entitled losers.

Not to be an armchair shrink, but are you sure that you’re separating the feeling of ‘money isn’t buying happiness’ from the feeling of ‘guilt’? I mean… you made the point that the furniture isn’t making you happy. Nice things don’t (and won’t) make you happy. Financial security… now that can make one happy, or at least not stressed and depressed. You’re a lucky man to be able to run a blog, have a good income, work from home, and not have to report to ‘the man’ anymore. Those things are priceless. The ‘stuff’, not so much – that will only bring disappointment if you continue to view it as something that should be making you happier (instead you feel guilt).

While we are prepared to have varying circumstances, we often dislike being far from the median, and we often dislike having our acquaintances being an outlier as well. Social pressure acts on us regarding finances, political views, clothing, and a whole host of points.

If you have grown up in a circle where substantial debt is common, it feels odd to have no debt and odder still to maintain the no debt. If you grew up in a circle that did not feel advanced education was worthwhile, it feels odd to be studying hard.

It’s not to say it is destiny, but social/family pressure is very, very succesful unless we are aware of the pressure others place on us and the pressure we place on others (It’s a two-way street for sure). Social pressure is almost always disguised, and often has a beneficial effect, so it can’t be discarded wholesale.

When I visit some of my family, I’m the not quite poor relation, and in others I’m the successful one, so I fancy that I can adapt to changes in circumstances quite well, but perhaps I’m just the median.

Rand was, in fact, very rigorous. Human, yes, very much flawed, yes, but certainly rigorous. And as mentioned above, just because you can point out certain flaws in her philosophy does not necessitate the need to throw the entire thing out and call it ‘nuts’. From Branden’s article, Objectivism states: “That reality is what it is, that things are what they are, independent of anyone’s beliefs, feelings, judgments or opinions—that existence exists, that A is A… That a human being is an end in him- or herself, that each one of us has the right to exist for our own sake, neither sacrificing others to self nor self to others… That no individual—and no group—has the moral right to initiate the use of force against others… That force is permissible only in retaliation and only against those who have initiated its use”. These are all very useful principles, and not nuts at all.

Finally, I’d like to mention that Rand absolutely was discussed (albeit briefly) in one of my philosophy classes when I was in school.

Many philosophers have charming styles, but they are read because they also have the rigor.

And I didn’t mean my peers directly. As far as I know Twain, Dickens and Austen have not been dropped from reputable English Lit department syllabi. And as far as I know, Rand has not been adopted by reputable philosophy or political science departments.

It’s possible that Rand’s fiction is worth reading. However, the philosophy that underpins it is nuts.

Above all else, Rand admires competence and creation. Many latch on to the concept of looters while not holding themselves up to the measuring sticks of competence and creation. Both have to be understood to have a more cohesive view of her books.

In this context, it is legitimate to criticize those who would take my property and give it to someone else. Alternatively, it is mine to do with as I please; if some portion of that includes giving, it would be inappropriate for others to prohibit me from doing so.

http://www.amazon.com/Limbo-Blue-Collar-Roots-White-Collar-Dreams/dp/0471714399

Oftentimes people who have not earned success find it difficult to understand the mixed emotions felt by the newly (1st generation) successful. In this case, I mean both the poor and those for whom success was heavily subsidized by family. I have yet to meet anyone who truly pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps who did not have these feelings.

Intellectually, I’m quite proud of my modest achievements, but it feels wrong for my life to be so easy when it is so hard for so many.

Exactly. I think it’s a version of Diffusion of Responsibility:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

Would you mind posting a link to the story you mentioned? I don’t take her for the norm and I’d like to see more specifics on her circumstances.

As far as the charities go, you’re not comparing apples to apples. The difference between us and other countries is probably due to culture and/or the fact that there is no need for many charities when government programs fill their role.

@JD[132]:

“My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.”

-—From “Playboy’s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand”

I see no disagreement here. They seem to be advocating the same thing: That if you personally find value in charity, then there is no reason why you should not partake. But the idea of it being a moral duty, a moral lien against your successes because others aren’t as successful, I reject. And that kind of lien is exactly what you described in your post JD.

@barnetto[135]:

Their actions could also be seen as selfish, in that they are working to prevent destruction something they value, which is the basic human right of free life. The progression of the Holocaust is a good example as to why this is important for everyone. It started with just the Jews; it later generalized to everyone who is not an able-bodied Aryan. That is why this is an entangling factor, and why it is removed in my scenario.

The loss of free life does mean so much more than that extra 10% of your earnings. I agree completely with you, and I was mistaken in what I said before. The basic point I was badly trying to present is that I see little difference in these two options:

* Forcibly submitting the results of my work to a government, in order for it to “justly” redistribute it, presumably giving me some share of it back to me so that I may obtain the necessities of life.
* Involuntary servitude, where I am forced to work for someone else’s profit, and that person provides the basic necessities of life to me.

The difference between 35% taxation and 100% taxation is just a number in a formula. But the difference to those who must endure it… It is so much more than that. That is what I meant by the difference being 10%.

What I find curious is there is ‘should’ and ‘will’. I think most of us agree that we ‘should’ give something back to our communities, but there is a very thick line in the sand between that and being compelled to via an increasing tax rate. There are many things I think ‘should’ be, but I shudder to think at them being compelled by order of law.

There is also the argument of unintended consequences. When gov’t seeks to be benevolent with our money it’s amazing how many fewer dollars are created to be taxed. I read a story today about a woman who is looking for a $60k/year job instead of replacing the $120k/yr job she lost because that additional $60k is taxed at an effective rate of 79% because of her higher marginal rate and earning her way out of tax rebates and other benefits that drop off (i.e. need based scholarships/grants, etc). Why would she work that much harder to take home 21c on the dollar? I also find it interesting that in societies with increasing tax rates charitable giving decreases.

Anyone who quotes her is a fool.

There’s a reason she’s not studied in important political science or philosphy programs. (Or at least not any ones I’ve ever seen.) I never encountered her once on a reading list and neither has anyone I’ve ever met.