With a Trump presidency, it seems everyone who’s anyone is casting about for an explanation of his egregious and narcissistic behavior. This has brought up the effects wealth can have on individuals psychologically. This is not a new argument, but what is new about it is that ancient people were generally wary of wealth, but in the last few decades, we’ve begun to see the wealthy as just like you and me, but with more resources. We’ve stopped seeing wealth as a danger that leads to corruption and unhappiness and begun to see it as a reward that’s been earned, while seeing the poor and lower middle class as somehow less deserving, lazier, or morally weaker.
The Amelioration of Wealth
I just finished reading an article in the Washington Post about the effects being rich have on a person’s soul. The article points out that it’s only been in the last few decades that we’ve forgotten the age-old wisdom that money is the root of all evil and wealth corrupts.
According to an apocryphal exchange between F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, the only difference between the rich and the rest of us is that they have more money. But is that the only difference?
We didn’t used to think so. We used to think that having vast sums of money was bad and in particular bad for you — that it harmed your character, warping your behavior and corrupting your soul. We thought the rich were different, and different for the worse.
Today, however, we seem less confident of this. We seem to view wealth as simply good or neutral, and chalk up the failures of individual wealthy people to their own personal flaws, not their riches. Those who are rich, we seem to think, are not in any more moral danger than the rest of us. Compare how old movies preached the folk wisdom of wealth’s morally calamitous effects to how contemporary movies portray wealth: For example, the villainous Mr. Potter from “It’s A Wonderful Life” to the heroic Tony Stark (that is, Iron Man) in the Avengers films.
Tony Stark isn’t the only “virtuous billionaire” superhero. There’s also Batman who when asked what his superpower is replies cavalierly, “I’m rich.” The audience laughs, in on the joke. Our view of wealth has gone from a thing that cankers our soul to the power to do whatever we want, to do a greater good, a godlike power to control our destiny. And we see that as a positive, not a temptation that leads to ruination. Even the Bible, with its diatribes against the rich, hints at this with a caveat in Matthew 6:33:
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
Or as prosperity gospel fans like to say, if you live righteously then you get blessings and you’ll use those to build up God’s kingdom. Not everyone agrees that riches are swell in the “right hands,” though, any more than hot coals are swell in the “right hands.”
Some contemporary voices join this ancient chorus, perhaps none more enthusiastically than Pope Francis. He’s proclaimed that unless wealth is used for the good of society, and above all for the good of the poor, it is an instrument “of corruption and death.” And Francis lives what he teaches: Despite access to some of the sweetest real estate imaginable — the palatial papal apartments are the sort of thing that President Trump’s gold-plated extravagance is a parody of — the pope bunks in a small suite in what is effectively the Vatican’s hostel. In his official state visit to Washington, he pulled up to the White House in a Fiat so sensible that a denizen of Northwest D.C. would be almost embarrassed to drive it. When Francis entered the Jesuit order 59 years ago, he took a vow of poverty, and he’s kept it.
Mixing Business & Personal
I was also reading an interesting essay about the TV show Arrested Development, a show about a family whose wealth breeds a host of evils: laziness, ineptitude, greed, outrageous conspicuous consumption, betrayal and intrigue, adultery, relationship dysfunction, potential incest, arson, and oh yes–light treason! The article was a Marxist perspective on the show, illustrating the 4 ways capitalism alienates the workers, causing dysfunction:
- Workers are alienated from the actual goods they produce which are taken by the capitalist and sold in the market. Because workers do not choose or keep the objects they produce, their vision is not reflected by them.
- Workers are alienated from control of their own labor altogether. The capitalist determines what, how and why it is produced.
- Since capitalism alienates the workers from control of their activity, and since free and conscious control over that activity is the human essence, capitalism alienates workers from their essence. Because workers are alienated from who they really are, they are likewise incapable of seeing others for who they are.
- Workers are alienated from other people and from community.
From an article in The Spectator:
Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves.
His criticism of the way capitalism creates distance in communities sounds familiar to some of the dysfunctions when ward members embark on MLM schemes, using ward connections to create revenue streams for themselves or their families. As a business owner, I am loathe to seek customers among my fellow congregants for this very reason. Customers and companies have a very different type of relationship than do friends and extended family members. Business relationships are based on goods or services being valued and exchanged, in which both parties play a specific role with each other rather than merely being themselves; those roles contain certain expectations and pressures, hierarchies and obligations. Going to church with one’s clients changes the nature of the relationship inherently and makes friendships fraught. Like hiring relatives, it’s all good and well until it’s not. Then it’s awkward as arse. Money intrudes. Money alienates. Money makes things fake.
But what about tithing? Doesn’t tithing settlement create a similar issue by involving a reckoning or settling of accounts, an artifice to the relationships between congregants and ecclesiastical leaders? Yes and no. For those who work for the church or who have business dealings with an ecclesiastical leader or clerk, this can absolutely be problematic and create awkwardness or even abuse of power. For the average lay member with no such ties, the fact that tithing is self-reported mitigates the likelihood of abuse of power greatly, although not entirely. As business people we don’t tell our clients to pay what they think is right and that’s good with us. Well, except Radiohead and a handful of sociologists.
How Does Wealth Corrupt?
A while back, I blogged about the perils of being rich (during the Romney campaign) here. From studies cited in that post, wealthy people are more prone to certain bad behaviors than the poor are, namely:
- More likely to take candy from babies.
- Less likely to pay for pastries or bagels on the “honor system.”
- More willing to cheat to win money in a computer dice contest.
- More willing to hide important information from their opponent in a negotiation.
- More likely to cut off other drivers in traffic or run stop signs.
- Less empathetic to others; less aware of the feelings of others in social interactions and more likely to be disengaged. [1]
- More likely to commit adultery.
- Tendency to drink more alcohol.
- Far more likely to shoplift than poor people are.
- Less willing to share with others.
From the WaPo article cited in the first paragraph:
Over the past few years, a pile of studies from the behavioral sciences has appeared, and they all say, more or less, “Being rich is really bad for you.” Wealth, it turns out, leads to behavioral and psychological maladies. The rich act and think in misdirected ways.
Moderation in All Things
Malcolm Gladwell, in the book Outliers, talks about the similar effects of both poverty and wealth in how children turn out. He calls this a “U-Curve” result in which the best performance occurs in the middle with equally bad results at both ends; children raised with the disadvantages of poverty perform similarly bad to children raised with the disadvantages of wealth. Children that perform best as adults are those in the middle class, who have to get jobs, but are able to get ahead with hard work and education, unlike the poor who may lack a support structure and unlike the wealthy whose support structure is often warped and corrupted by ease and luxury in a way that reduces ability in the next generation. It’s like the chicken hatching from its egg. If you break the shell for the hatchling, it is not strong enough to survive; if it’s incapable of breaking through the shell on its own, it likewise dies.
So, if our families are becoming too wealthy, we should be like the rich man Jesus admonishes to give what he had to the poor.
“Give, but give until it hurts.” Mother Theresa
The problem is that we admire the wealthy and aspire to wealth without seeing that wealth cankers the soul and is often a temptation too great for mortals.
I was in a corporate training years ago that talked about the sweet spot being “financial freedom” rather than “wealth.” When you seek wealth, there is always more wealth, more ease, more luxury, to aspire to–the chase is never over because wealth becomes an idol, a symbol of your importance. When you seek financial freedom, you seek to free yourself from this endless question for things and instead to have enough to cover your needs and to let go of things that you don’t need; acquisition takes time and effort, and it also misdirects your attention from the things that create real happiness: family, friends, health, living in the present. Another way I like to think about it is that I’d rather acquire experiences than things, although I do also enjoy expensive experiences (theater and travel), so experience-seeking isn’t perfect either.
Conclusions & Discussion
- Do you think we’ve changed from seeing wealth as a negative to a positive in society at large? What about in the church?
- If you are a parent, what have you find to be good strategies to help kids have a healthy attitude about money & work?
Discuss.
[1] I’ll call this one the Darcy Effect, although he otherwise seems to be the perfect hero–the rich guy with a heart of gold who is merely aloof and socially inept but really does help his tenants and is a generous master of the manor despite accidentally insulting his social inferiors. I suspect Jane Austen’s of Darcy was intended to be more critical than our modern reading of him, though. It’s all too easy for middle-class Elizabeth to expect the worst of him because he’s part of the corrupt ton, socializing in Regency England under the morally corrupt Prinny and his set.
Wheat & Tares 
I do sense that many more people see being “really rich” as a positive and even the goal of life than 30+ years ago when I was a teen.
I live in a well to do area, but many people around us are much more well to do (i.e. make 2x or 4x more than I do). I make sure my kids learn how to work hard. I do buy them a car (more for me than them), but I specifically find a 10+ year old car in good shape. I personally would never buy my kid a “cool” car. So far I think it has worked well as my kids seemed to have not felt terribly entitled. My wife is even more of a penny pincher than I am and that helps.
I had better stop patting myself on the back or I might get a cramp in my shoulder muscle!
And on the caption “Rich people love to have their arms open wide.” – good one Hawk 🙂
Wow! Great post. I was not following W&T back during the Romney Campaign so all of this information was new to me. Always impressed with the amount of research you pack into a post. I don’t have children so can’t answer that question but I am skeptical of the narrative “we used to look at wealth differently” argument. I mean, if memory serves wasn’t Bruce Wayne created at roughly the same time as Mr. Potter? Monopoly was the hit new board game at the time. On the flip side movies such as Wolf of Wall Street, Fun With Dick and Jane and others still seem to portray the crooked rich guy. It seems like with the right pop culture references the story could get spun either way. In terms of in the church as i have mentioned in past threads though I’m an adult I am still relatively young and any statement I make about changes in the church during my lifetime I make at my own peril give said limited experience. That said I would say church has been a mixed bag for me. On the one hand the Book of Mormon teaches prosperity as the result of keeping the commandments and D&C talks about laws being irrevocably declared in heaven. On the other side I also heard plenty of talks discussing how misfortune befalls the righteous and the wicked and once or twice a year there was always that Sunday school where somehow the conversation would get hijacked by someone convinced that owning a speedboat was a sign of gluttony and moral decay (offending all speedboat owners). That said, regardless of where we are, I hope we work towards a more equal world. I particularly liked your advice at the end of trying to find a way to prioritize experience over money (even if it doesn’t solve the problem I think it is good advice.)
I still think it’s incredibly hypocritical for some people to equate wealth, especially wealth thru corruption, with Republican figures only. How about the Clintons , George Soros, and that poster family of liberalism, the Kennedys?
Mark Agee Gibson: I was certainly thinking of the Clintons also as I wrote this as well as, well, pretty much every politician we have right now. We’ve set up our system so that you cannot get elected without a lot of wealth, and that wealth compromises. If it’s your own, it corrupts your thinking. If it’s someone else’s, it entangles your loyalties. However, the article I cited was based on Trump. Is it hypocritical for the Washington Post to focus on Trump? I think the Trump-as-impetus phenomenon is because his wealth is literally the only thing he brings to the table as a politician. He has no record of public service. Personally, I never liked the characterization of Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy (as my linked post above indicates), but I also don’t consider him to be a terribly convincing Republican. I see his views being closer to the Clintons than to Trump’s. I don’t see them in binaries. My post wasn’t about Republicans vs. Liberals, but in our nation at least there is a tendency for the wealthy to benefit disproportionately from Republican policies.
But we also have real-life wealthy superheroes as well, such as the Gates, encouraging social responsibility.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/14-billionaires-signed-bill-gates-and-warren-buffetts-giving-pledge.html
My own family is comfortably in the middle, but because we are comfortable, we’ve had the opportunity to contribute to missionaries sent out by the ward (including helping with dental work, which is not tax-deductible), Especially For Youth (and some people meet their future spouse there!), and to hire young people earning money for a camp or high adventure. We also hope to serve a mission, which can be pretty expensive if we return to the country where my husband had served as a young missionary.
Before our area got a real chapel, a lot of new members were baptized in the swimming pool of a (well-off) doctor who graciously shared their home for all kinds of ward activities.
When we lived in Brasil, it was interesting that only maybe 10 percent of the ward had a phone and 35 percent a car. Since both were preferred for ward leadership, that limited the pool a bit. (However, the phone coverage is better now in the age of smart phones. )
So I have seen the blessings that come from wise stewardship of resources, which do allow one to serve in ways that they might not otherwise. I guess I don’t personally know anyone who is really rich. And it would not occur to me to look down on anyone else because of their apparent financial status. And that is the other thing…we probably don’t know the true financial status of those around us. Through my work, I have met some millionaires who lived in simple homes and drove a simple car, and others who lived in a much more pretentious way but with no retirement savings at all.
The statistics have been interesting.
What is also interesting is how the definition of modest and poor changes.
I’m reminded of Rockefeller running for office and using a poor family making only $100k a year as an example.
Wish I had Solutions.
An aspect of this that I find frustrating is the tendency on social media to only present the best part of you, your vacations, the cool stuff you buy, etc. Having all of those posts aggregated into a “feed” or “timeline” only amplifies it and I have to think it affects youth as they grow up. “My life isn’t as cool as their’s is,” or “They always go on great vacations to amazing places,” etc. The inertia of it all is difficult to counter as a parent.
For me one big question is whether the ills you list in the “How Does Wealth Corrupt?” section are caused by wealth or if they cause wealth. That is, is it that wealth makes a person selfish, or is it that being selfish makes a person rich?
Interesting thought Dave. I happen to have some somewhat new friends that are reasonably well to do (MUCH more than me). They are both wonderful salt of the earth folks. Money doesn’t seem to matter much to them. Does it get back to “the LOVE of money” being the issue? If you are able to get a bunch, but don’t look at it as making you better/more powerful than others, can you then keep from having money “ruining” you?
Reminds me of something I heard about Mexicans that come to the US, get some $, then go back home to Mexico. Someone that has done this a few times mentioned that many of the folks that “go back home” indulge in “conspicuous consumption” spending. They will spend through their “wealth” just to be seen as a wealthy person and then have to head back to the US to do it again. They instead could essentially “retire” and still live a bit better than those around them, but instead they have to show off. I was very surprised to hear this was common.
I think Trump would be an ass whether he was rich or poor. He quite transcends the issue at hand and is a distraction. Per usual. Lets not talk about him unless it leads to impeachment.
Perhaps this is a gross oversimplification but the LDS church leaders did something quite interesting in the middle of the 20th century. Most churches, if you give them $1000 they spend it , on some worthy or less worthy cause. The LDS church started to invest it, often in corporations over which they had some control or influence. The American economy boomed overall especially in the Reagan-Bush-Clinton years and each of those $1000 donations grew to 5 or 10 times that amount before being spent and even then only a fraction was spent. And they are now fabulously wealthy.
I don’t know if that is good for their souls or not. The floundering of the LDS church under poor leadership might argue that way, and any success the other way.
I would not advise this thought experiment for the weak of faith. Take 10% of your annual income and hypothetically invest it into indexed funds and see what happens, over the course of a select historic 50 year span. It will astonish you, at least it did me. The LDS church leaders are not asking for a few thousand dollars in tithing, they are asking for maybe a million or several million in some cases. I don’t know how much my parents were blessed for paying double tithing or triple tithing most of their life, nothing obvious. But we do have many blessings that are not arguably connected to it, and inheriting a million dollars was not one of them.
“….in our nation at least there is a tendency for the wealthy to benefit disproportionately from Republican policies. ” And I would add the poor also benefit disproportionately from Republican economic policies in comparison to Democratic policies. Because the Democratic policies are/were fundamentally not about economic benefit but focused on other “higher” causes. and ideals.
This was an interesting post. I believe in the prosperity gospel, to an extent, but not in the way it’s often presented in liberal blog posts. I think the prosperity promised in the Book of Mormon (for keeping the commandments) and in Malachi (for paying tithes and offerings) refers to the people as a whole, not to individuals.
However, I also believe what’s written about riches in the first parts of Jacob 2 (culminating in vs 19). The pursuit of money for status or to satisfy lusts is bad. But God can and does give people riches in order to bless others. I do, in fact, kind of view wealth as a super power. There are a lot of problems that cannot be solved with money, but money sure can solve a lot of them. It’s extremely gratifying to be able to meet somebody’s needs or relieve their anxiety or suffering because I have the money. On the other hand, if one were so rich that it didn’t hurt a little to give, there’s probably no growth for the giver, and the sufferings of the recipient are somehow belittled. In that case, giver and recipient are in different and unequal classes, and the sense of connection and brotherhood would be lost.
If wealthy parents really want to protect kids from the ills of being wealthy, I think the best thing they can do is require their kids to earn the money to pay for the things they want. When a kid gets $50 in a birthday card from the grandparents, she’s not going to appreciate the value of that $50 unless she’s had a job. There’s nothing like working for 5 hours at $10/hr in a restaurant or working construction, and then only getting $40 on her paycheck (because of withholding), to teach a kid the value of $50.
Interesting, I remember “I wanna be rich” being a song when I was a kid, and hearing adults talk about how they could realize their dreams on this MLM scheme or that. If anything, all that talk I heard back then turned me off from the idea of wanting to be really rich. Yeah, I want to realize my dreams, but my dreams really don’t revolve about money. I guess the phrase “we have sufficient for our needs” sticks with me; and I feel fortunate that I really do.
One thing I have noticed as well from moving around Utah County a lot: people make a much bigger deal about wealth in more homogenous middle-class wards. It’s almost like folks just want to be wealthier than their neighbors. This doesn’t seem to be as big of an issue in poor wards, rich wards, or those that have a good mix.
I think the discussion about how wealth has been perceived is REALLY interesting. I can definitely think of a lot more “negative stereotypes” in older literature, but it didn’t really strike me that that was how wealth itself was seen, rather than just being examples of exceptionally “bad” characters who happened to be wealthy.
I think Scrooge well demonstrates the gospel principle to share the wealth. I think the scriptures that teach to seek the kingdom of God first and all these things being added is sound doctrine. I’ve seen hundreds of folks give mightily and quietly as the gospel says only to have others less fortunate belittle their “McMansions” and nice cars. The wealthy people I’ve known give tons of money away even though many talk about the rich like they’re evil personified. I grew up in a very poor home and listened to my folks berate and belittle anyone who made more money—they were all haughty, proud, uppity, show offs who looked down their arrogant noses at everyone else. How shocking it was for me to grow up and meet incredibly generous, humble, well-balanced “wealthy” (which was almost everyone compared to me) people who shifted my paridigm completely.
I believe where much has been given much is required. Getting over “it’s all about me” is just one of the requirements. And I’ve known plenty of poor people in my life. Many stole, cheated, lied, used others, abused others, manipulated, and a host of other ills that certainly rival anything the wicked rich folks do. Maybe heaven is just for us terrific middle class do-gooders who aren’t plagued with such evils!
I am also thinking about how it’s not money that is the root of all evil, but the love of it. Seems like the difference is not about what you have or don’t have, but about your attitude toward it.
“We’ve stopped seeing wealth as a danger that leads to corruption and unhappiness and begun to see it as a reward that’s been earned, while seeing the poor and lower middle class as somehow less deserving, lazier, or morally weaker.”
By “we,” you obviously mean Republicans. I don’t see the same denigrating of the poor among Democrats.
Wally: “We” is contemporary society, not Republicans. For one thing, I’m not a Republican. For another, this blog is not for Americans only. Democrats are equally susceptible to thinking that their own wealth isn’t going to corrupt them. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are wealthy. You must not be reading the comments.
I don’t think attitudes about wealth have changed in US society. The very young continue to confuse consumerism with power. Then, they grow up and the next generation does the same.
I think it is important to point out that to be poor is different than to be without money. To be poor is a mindset and a attitude. Poverty too often leads to more poverty because of that mindset. It effects spending and saving habits and economic priorities.
Growing up, my parents used to say that as newlyweds, they were often without money .. but they had never been poor.
In LDS culture, it is acceptable to be without money. It is absolutely unacceptable to be poor.
Wealth is this essay seems to me to be defined by obvious consumer consumption. That definition would indeed lead to a U curve with wealth and poverty as equally unhealthy.
In LDS culture, there is a certain hero worship of those who are willing to embrace consumerism. Blatant consumerism is so outside the LDS cultural norm that when someone embraces it, it is seen as embracing The One Cool Sin. There is a certain admiration for the chutzpah.
The truth is that most — if not all — of us could go lease a Porsche Carrera tomorrow. We could lease a big house on the same day. We could make sure everyone heard about every trip. We could live a much more financially conspicuous life. For many, it might require a second job and there might not be any money left over for investments, but we could each do it. But what is the point? It doesn’t make us better individuals and it separates us from our peers.
As I have watched a close family member be extremely successful at a very young age, that individual bought the huge house, the exotics cars, and the big boat. What they found was that it was socially isolating. Their peers were busy paying off student loans, getting married, starting families, and saving up to buy a house. To show so much obvious consumerism didn’t improve their life. It led to loneliness and to doubts about new friends. Was the friendship only because of the lifestyle?
To have money squirreled away in the bank is financial security. It gives a sense of calm in one’s life to have a real tangible financial cushion. Those financial resources should have no connection to consumer consumption and the outward trappings of wealth.
Real financial solvency is a little quieter that wealth. It is healthy for children to know that their parents are financially secure, know how to save, are able to provide for real needs, and choose to keep a low financial profile.
Remember that while we all admire the character of Tony Stark, the movies show him essentially alone and disconnected from humanity .. although the parties are all at his house on his dime. It is a life of extremes that lacks human connection.
And once again
Both the Old Testament and Book of Mormon teach the prosperity gospel, though both also teach the importance of using your resources to care for the poor and needy and having an attitude of humility. The books of Job and Ecclesiastes counter the prosperity gospel. I think we’ve been dealing with mixed messages for a long time.
My sister worked as a waitress at the local country club. She usually found the people who earned the wealth as pretty down-to-earth and considerate. It was later generations who tended to take on the negative stereotypes.
We *do* adhere to a prosperity gospel in our culture, I think. Financial security is needed to serve in upper church leadership positions, or to make the career sacrifice for mission service. The church actively courts wealthy donors – you can support humanitarian aid, missionary funds, temple construction, and a host of other causes that help “build up the kingdom. So while we try to warn against pride associated with wealth, it *is* something implicitly encouraged.