Phil

Australia has such a strong minimum wage, that hiring domestic help is quite expensive and hard to find. It is also very culturally awkward. We have such an egalitarian culture, that being served, even when paying for it is incredibly awkward.

I’ll “confess” that I hire a cleaner and a gardener. I do this with a clear conscience because I know how much they need the money and it releases my time to do more work as a Youth Pastor. Having said this, I don’t tell many people about it, I too am in my twenties without kids, so most people would see my choice as indulgent. Maybe it is, but it’s what I do.

As for hiring help from Asia, I’ve got to say I have no problem being a citizen of the world and paying smart people to do good work, wherever they live.

@Honey – Excellent reply. I agree. In the end, all things will take some sort of risk for any kind of gain.

1) People falsely believe that if we give other people more, then it necessarily follows that they themselves will have less. Not only is having more employable/productive/tax-paying citizens better for everyone economically, there are numerous other advantages that can’t be quantified in terms of dollars per capita that are more important. This is why the talking heads drive me so crazy on TV – they say “If we did that, we’d have to raise taxes,” as if that’s always a bad thing. What if something’s intrinsic worth is greater than the dollar amount it costs to pay for it? Why is raising taxes a bad thing?

2) Because the world is an uncertain place, people will cash in on smaller gains immediately rather than invest in long-term solutions that will have much bigger payoffs later. I.e., “I will vote against increasing the sales tax because it is more expensive for me,” even though by voting against it I am depriving my city of educational improvements/new hospitals/whatever that will have a more significant positive impact on my quality of life down the road than saving .01 per dollar would (as a made-up example). The penny in my pocket today is real; my future children and the possibility that I may get cancer one day and need a specialist are not.

3) One of the great failings of democracy is that it indulges the human desire to put off acknowledging that we must save/plan today for things that are inevitable and expensive. Just like the average American doesn’t have a 6-month emergency fund (though the average GRS reader might!), as a society we ignore the fact that health care costs are skyrocketing, that the planet is overpopulated, that we are destroying our planet, and that all 3 of these things are inextricably intertwined in ways that we will not even be able to imagine until 2-3 billion people die of famine and pandemic – and even then our response will be as reactive and minimal as possible rather than as proactive and comprehensive as possible.

4) Secretly, we are all afraid that we are the expendable ones. It seems that one of the purposes in arranging humankind into a society is acknowledging the fact that if it’s human nature for us to protect our own individual interests (when really our understanding of the world is so imperfect that we can’t even reliably gauge what our own individual interests truly are or should be), then we need to create an external body (government) that is charged explicity with discovering what is best for the whole and ruthlessly implementing those discoveries regardless of the short-term impact on some individuals. It’s all good in theory, but we’re all terrified that we’d be the short-term casualty.

@Arturo, I apologize, my use of the word “you” in the text you pointed out was not directed at you individually. I suppose that was a poor choice of words given the context. You have had an underlying theme of altruism throughout your posts based on an assumption that is a moral stance. I was challenging that assumption, that’s all. Perhaps a beer, or better yet, a scotch and a cigar would have made for a better venue. Take care.

@Honey – I agree with your statement -> “I want to live in a society that’s motivated to take legislative action to maximize the productivity and happines of all its citizens.”. So what do you think is stopping us from having that now?

For me, your line of thinking is one of the reasons that I am opposed to private/faith-based charity work. If something’s a “right,” then everyone should have access to it and everyone should also subsidize their access appropriately.

The problems with private/faith-based charity work are that a) by endorsing this type of giving we’re admitting that not everyone has access to what’s being given, in which case the problem is with the setup of the society and not the individual, and/or b) we’re giving a certain class of person for free something that others have to pay for, and/or c) what’s being given is not, in fact, a “right” and is instead preferential treatment of the people receiving it. None of these are moral solutions for me.

This is NOT to say that I believe that our society is perfectly just. There are horrendous injustices going on around the world all the time, and I think many of them are imperative and need to be rectified. I just think that if we classify something as a right, then the government should be the one providing access to it. If it’s not a right, then why are there organizations providing it to some people free of charge while others have to pay?

I don’t want to live in a society that’s comfortable with shifting the cost burden of basic rights to external bodies. I want to live in a society that’s motivated to take legislative action to maximize the productivity and happines of all its citizens. Charity seems to be based in a zero-sum fallacy, when in actuality there are lots of circumstances in which more for everyone improves things for everyone.

I’m sorry that my use of the rhetorical device does not suit you. Though the questions weren’t intended to be overtly rhetorical. The fact that you find them as such suggests that you have some contradiction between the obvious answers and what you would like to say. You cannot say that is moral to work towards a better life for yourself, while at the same time say that it is immoral to keep your wealth beyond some arbitrary point of a “middle class standard of living”. If you have answers and can show me where I’ve gone wrong I’d love to hear them.

What I’m trying to point out is that altruism as a moral law has the use of force as it’s only means of implementation (the gun metaphor). If it arises organically then its practice is morally permissible — I have no grounds to prevent you from giving, but for you to call me immoral for not participating is baseless and unenforceable. Notice here that my view does not violate any fundamental rights of yours, but that yours violates my fundamental right to the fruit of my own labor, and therefore my right to my own life.

As to your definition of selfishness: “It is the act of placing one’s own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others.” I have no issue with this as stated, but it’s incomplete. Your working definition includes the idea that my interests are in direct conflict with yours, and therefore me looking out for me means you get exploited. This is fallacious except in the extreme scenario where natural resources are so scarce that a population is not sustainable. This hypothetical isn’t even worth discussing — it is an apocalyptic scenario.

I recognize the world as a benevolent universe. After all we evolved to live in the exact world in which we are living. There is no reason to believe the cards are stacked against us. To base your morality on the exceptions to this seems to me a poor starting place and a depressing way to view the world. All that is required of you is that you love your own life enough to work to sustain it. If you cannot do that I would find the idea of sympathy towards you utterly repulsive. If you can do that, you require no sympathy.

…sorry for the length. I’m sure I’m boring most everyone else to death by now.

I filled the first year or so by signing up for a whole lot of adult education courses in areas I was interested in, some health/fitness improvements to counter the stress I’d been under to that point, and general relaxation after fifteen years at the grindstone.

If the GFC hadn’t put me back in the office, I would have followed up with looking into doing university degrees, pursuing research in areas I loved, getting a couple of back-of-the-envelope ideas followed up on, hitting a couple of interesting conventions around the world, and looking into low-level philanthropy.

One thing I remember with great clarity from that time is that for about three months, I woke up grinning from ear to ear with the thought that it was entirely possible I’d never have to work another day in my life – and if I chose to work somewhere, I could walk away at any time. It was a real buzz.

As a bonus, even though I was invested badly and got mostly wiped out by the GFC (c’est la vie), I’d had the calm, reflective time off needed to decide what I really wanted to do with myself as a career. I absolutely love what I’m doing now and wouldn’t change it for the world – I might even keep doing it if I get to my personal cash-out point again, it’s so much fun.

Glad to hear you didn’t fall into the depression trap. Keep on truckin’!

You say: “I would like to hear on how you can be moral while being selfish.” A rational self-interest is completely moral. Are you saying that entering into an employment contract through which I gain the means to support myself and my family is immoral? I will grant you that it is also within your right to give your wealth away if you choose. Where the line is drawn is when you say it is immoral to keep the fruit of your labor and that you must give it away. That is plain theft, and it can only be enforced with a gun.

Let me respond to this: “We are more than just biological beings wanting to survive. I’m sure you can agree with me here” I disagree completely. The primary distinguishing trait of the human species is that we are a rational, volitional species, and we are such because of our biology, nothing more. When you say we more than this, what are you referring to?

You also say: “It is a right for the people to have water if others in that area have that and more.” Bull. Running water is a service that requires significant work to provide. You’re only entitled to it if you can afford to pay those providing it. I heard no answer to this question: At who’s expense is it a right of the people to have running water? And what is your recourse if no one volunteers to provide this service? The answer is: a gun to force them — now you tell me which is the immoral notion.

Good day.

@Holly – Thank you for your words of encouragement! I appreciate it, thank you!

@CrystalsQuest – Just a quick response on your comment “(Erica is ) giving freely of what she’s learnt in the process by guest posting here! “. it’s not very good advice, or lacking greatly in the article. I think that’s why these comments are here in the hundreds. I am in her “position”, financially free, and find it somewhat immature her response to her success. But I also know that those who chose to grow, will pass that phase. @FB says it pretty good. Even with my financial success, I cannot justify spending not only a chunk load with no purpose other than self pleasure, but to justify my high cost of maintenance as a human being and have others clean up after me.

@FB – Continuing from my response from @CrystalsQuest, I would like to further add to your comment: a person who has earned every dollar they have saved, spends every dollar in the manner they saved it. If one acquires money quickly, they spend it quickly. Erica herself admits she was in debt throughout her business, so it’s such an emotionally normal response to just spend when before you couldn’t. It’s obvious what she thinks is important in her life as I doubt few would argue that if you want to know where someone’s heart is, look at their money trail. I’m like you, FB, small sqft living and takes me only one hour to clean the place by myself. I do my own taxes but go to an accountant for the fancy stuff. That leaves me more money to help others with. I can’t say that my original intention of cleaning my own place and cooking for myself was because I liked it, but rather, it was to teach my son how to do it. Something I didn’t like, someone that I wasn’t good at… now like and am pretty good at. My son is learning and has a good grasp of it (he’s pretty young), but it was important to me that he grew with a normal spoon and for him to buy his own silver one, if you know what I mean. Because if not, you typically end up with someone who does not understand the value of hard work and could just end up spending like one who never really earned it.

Personally even getting a million bucks ($600k after taxes as pointed out by Troy), I wouldn’t have blown $50,000.

Yes, $600,000 is a lot of money.

Yes, $50,000 is a small percentage of that money.

But $50,000 in absolute terms, is a LOT OF FREAKING MONEY to me.

Note: This is coming from my personal perspective, and I used to earn (gross) $65,000/year and am now looking at bringing in about $200k/year working less than I did at $65,000 a year, and spending less.

Nevertheless, that was not the point of the post.

I think her point about outsourcing tasks you don’t want to do is a good point.

From my perspective, I don’t have anything I would outsource. Not even my taxes — I do the corp & my own taxes.

As for cleaning, we live in a small studio and it takes 3 hours a week, MAX.

We all just have different perspectives and I think if it makes her happy to not scrub anything — go for it.

Come on guys! On a blog like this, you should know that giving unearnt cash is not doing anybody a favour. There’s a reason success brings rewards, and there’s a reason others don’t enjoy those rewards – because they haven’t yet figured out their own path to success. Aren’t you robbing them by taking that climb and experience away from them? How many parents would think it was a good idea for all kids to automatically have jobs as soon as they finished school – regardless of whether that job was in a field they were good at, or enjoyed? Same thing.

Life is about experience. Not about money. Erica’s figured that out, so now she’s trading one for the other. There is nothing wrong with that, unless your particular jealous reaction forces you to find some philosophical point on which to argue she’s doing something she shouldn’t. Truth is, I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t love to be in her position in that respect, and buy chunks of their life back to do with as they choose. Wake up and get with the program, people! Not only is Erica freeing up her time with the fruits of her labours, she’s rewarding others’ labours, and even more, giving freely of what she’s learnt in the process by guest posting here!

If she was really a selfish, exploitative person, as some seem to imply, would we ever have heard from her?

I love my country, but not necessarily my fellow countrymen.

If you are equating morality with selflessness, then your’re right I’m not concerned with that at all. But you’d be mistaken to do so. The question of what is moral and what isn’t is of utmost importance to me.

Let’s take your example of what is required for survival. Humans are a rational species. The mode of survival is thinking, planning, and executing. One’s ability to do this determines ones ability to sustain one’s own life. The results of execution are the products necessary for your survival (either directly or indirectly). In order to own your life, you must own the product of your labor. If you say that another person’s need overrides your right to your product, then you do not own your life — you’ll be forever indebted to every person that has had less success than yourself. Therefore, property rights are the essential human right. The right to life is not the same as the right to exist. Life requires sustained action and is not guaranteed to anyone.

You’ve picked a terrible example to prove your point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Cochabamba_protests) The issue here should be obvious from the second sentence. What would expect from a country coming out of “decades of military dictatorships”. Now read the third sentence: “In 1985 with hyperinflation at an annual rate of twenty-five thousand percent, few foreign investors would do business in the country.” Gee, I wonder why. The water business wasn’t profitable for the government to run, and it wasn’t profitable for a private firm to run without raising rates.

At whose expense was it a right of the people to have running water? Even what we consider basic resources today take incredible amounts of work to reach their end consumers. Water must be purified, oil must be refined, coal must be burned, food must be grown/raised — this isn’t free! I’m sure I’ll get written off for this response, but you have to realize you can’t eat your cake and have it too.

@Honey – Haha, “everyone gives…but me.”. Good example as to why you need more than just the rules of economy to make a world worth living for everyone. It’s safe to say then that the tax system is more of a socialism invention.

I have no idea how something like that would be achieved, either. Eugenics, perhaps? Ha! KIDDING…I don’t think that’s a solution although it’s probably inevitable that some society will give it a go at some point!

An impossible task outside of Lake Wobegone (where all of the children are above average).
Government should strive for opportunity for everyone. Enforce non-discrimination, etc.

Even in the US the last census data shows that 25% of households were living on less than 25K/year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

The government is struggling to provide basic health care to all its citizens. While your goal is worthy, how it would be achieved is beyond me. I mean that literally, given the current state of the federal budget, I don’t know the process to get from that disparity, these 25% who can use some help, and the goal you suggest.

Regarding your stated purpose of government: At whose expense is government to “guarantee a middle class standard of living for every single one of its citizens”? This is exactly the problem that you pointed out earlier. Who will provide the means to accomplish this standard of living?

I’ll have to leave it at that. If you haven’t gotten my point by now, I’m not sure what else I could say. It’s been fun.

Capitalism, philosophically, may be about upholding individual rights for all persons. I agree that one of the problems here in the US is that we have a blended/corrupted implementation of it, but it seems to me that if anarchy is “the biggest gun wins,” capitalism is “the most money wins,” and for the most part the individual loses out in both systems.

This is getting quite a bit off topic and your comments on capitalism are so far off base that it’s difficult to have a discussion. We are talking about two completely different things.

In a true capitalist system this situation wouldn’t exist. My comment about socialism still stands.

Edit: I’d also add that in a socialist system you still have the same issue. If people don’t hardly make anything, you can tax them 100%, but it still wouldn’t cover the cost of the benefits they are receiving. In short, socialism creates the problem you’ve pointed out. It doesn’t solve it.