Rich And Poor

The greatest spread between rich and poor was recorded in 2015.

And before that in 2014.

And 2013.

In fact, all humans started out as equal. If, at the time that our species appeared, all were similarly involved in obtaining sustenance and working to survive, and there was no concept of currency or wealth, it is obvious that the economic spread has been increasing from the very beginning. Everyone started poor, and many remain so. The Bible (Deuteronomy 15:11) tells us “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land.” Now, however, there is an economic hierarchy – not simply a single level of poverty.

Why did this happen? Why are there rich and poor? We tend to attribute it to inherited wealth and the oppression of the poor by those with property and money. But that situation did not always obtain. Once we all were poor. In times we can only imagine, some became wealthy while others did not.

Perhaps the causes for this were brute strength and theft. Perhaps people were not equal in all respects but there were differences in, among other things, physical power and avarice. History has certainly shown this to be the case. Warriors and greedy people have established religious, political, and economic empires by force, and they have often passed them on to their children, or to others who shared their philosophy. That might be the case – indeed, it is undeniable that this happened – but it isn't the entire story, and leaves several questions unanswered.

For example, does that explain all the differences? If inheritance is the cause of inequality, is it justified? Should there be equality and socialism?

But more important, is it all really true? Are the rich well-off because of inheritance? Is there such a thing as incentive? Should there be a reward for improvement? People are, by nature, competitive. There are winners and losers. Should that normal impulse be reinforced, ignored, or penalized?

It is noteworthy that the truly rich, people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, didn't inherit their wealth. Actually “65% of the world’s UHNW individuals are self-made.” (businessinsider.com) The UHNW (Ultra High Net Worth) group, which includes various entertainment and sports figures, the computer pioneers, assorted inventors, numerous entrepreneurs, and those who invest in their projects, are a large part of the folks we love to hate and blame (anyone better off than we are). Yet less than twenty percent are living solely off inherited riches. Put otherwise, the vast majority are rich because of their looks, talent, ideas, hard work, and willingness to take risks. And luck. That's doesn't fit the image of the one percent so often reviled. The ones we envy. (Interestingly, in 2013, the last year from which I have figures, the most rapidly growing UHNW economies were Pakistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and the United Arab Republics. There are others we can hate besides our fellow Americans.) It is individual creativity, incentive, and hard work that have caused humanity to reach its current state. People want to advance and should be encouraged to do so.

It is a common, though regrettable, characteristic of humans that whatever problems we have we consider the fault of someone else. We're not responsible. That's not to say that there isn't some truth to this view. We're not all equal, and there are some who are better looking, more muscular, more creative, or intellectually superior to others, and they have used their gifts to succeed. Nor can it be denied that there are, among the rich, some who capitalize on their position to exercise control over those who are less fortunate. But if all members of Homo sapiens started out on the same rung of the economic ladder, if there are differences now, somewhere along the line the sorting must have taken place because of someone's talent, hard work, and willingness to take risks. That's true even in families with inherited wealth.

Of course society has the obligation to provide for the needy. Whether the need is for food, medical care, shelter, or something else, we cannot deny our responsibility for the “destitute people [who] will not cease to exist within the Land.” Ideally though, the necessary assistance will be provided by all of us voluntarily, and philanthropic endeavors by some of the “super-rich,” Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett, Rockefeller, and Carnegie among them, are noteworthy in this regard. The foundations they established have offered substantial assistance to those in need. (Indeed, they have aided us all.) But there are times, sadly too many, when compulsory assistance, derived from more fortunate taxpayers, is required because voluntary help is insufficient. And when it is necessary there should be no hesitation in providing it.

Charity, however, as exemplified by government support, though it may serve as a necessary bridge, is not the answer. It promotes and rewards dependence. Independence is a better solution. Philanthropy – the provision of funds to establish conditions that will allow the needy to thrive and to enrich themselves using their own talents and hard work – is more likely to furnish a continuing benefit for recipients and their children. It's far better to help those in need to succeed, than to aid them in failure. In his discussion of charity, Maimonides (twelfth century) wrote that “The greatest level [of charity], above which there is no greater, is to … strengthen his hand [that of the needy person] until he need no longer be dependent upon others.” Someone else, probably more recent despite the claims regarding Lao Tzu, phrased it differently: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” And by his efforts in whatever field he chooses he may even become wealthy.

There is a responsibility as well, therefore, of the needy to find ways to improve themselves. Success is certainly not assured, but there is still the possibility of going from rags to riches. Or at least to self-sufficiency. However it requires effort. Society is duty-bound to provide the conditions for success. Those who desire advancement, though, must invest themselves and their ideas in seeking it.