Chuzzlewit in Namibia

It is hopeless to try and pin him down to any definite remedy ...

Some very interesting discussion below about the meaning of the globalrichlist calculator ("How rich are you?").

OK, so there I am in the top 6.57 percent of the world's population, income-wise. I'm richer than all but 394,655,173 of my felow humans. But so what?

Much of that income is spoken for before it gets to me -- by Comcast, Working Assets, PECO, State Farm and my landlord. The last of those is the biggest chunk, of course. The place is nice enough, for a one-bedroom, and the neighborhood is very nice (not everybody can afford to live in "Everybody's Home Town"). It's the kind of place, I suppose, that 93.43 percent of the world wishes they could afford. The most luxurious aspect of it is somewhat intangible -- the luxury of Not Having a Roommate.

But the question I'm stumbling toward here is what does it mean for me, and for the millions of Americans like me, to be a part of the top 10 percent, to be among the 400 million or so wealthiest people on earth, when it's also true that missing our next paycheck could be financially disastrous?

That globalrichlist calculator also got me to thinking of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie and of their apparent decision to live as expatriate royalty of a sort in Namibia.

Namibia is not one of the poorest nation's in the world. Plug their per capita income of $7,000 (US) into that grl calculator and it would appear that the average Namibian is still far better off than the average earthling (the top 13.96 percent, it says). Then again, since Namibia ranks 124th in income equality, per capita income probably isn't a very useful measurement of the average Namibian.

Suffice it to say that, compared to me and to people like me, the people of Namibia are very, very poor. And compared to me and to people like me, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are very, very rich. If I got fired tomorrow and were unable to collect unemployment, then I might not feel like it, but the truth is, big-picture-wise, I have more in common with Pitt and Jolie than I do with most people in Namibia.

It certainly seems that Pitt and Jolie have been heavy-handed in using their privilege to leverage more privilege in Namibia. I can't really argue with much of what Brendan O'Neill writes here in "Brad, Angelina and the rise of 'celebrity colonialism.'" They have no business conscripting public officials into private service, and certainly no business using those officials to keep "undesirable" reporters out of that country.

But some of the criticism that has been directed at these "colonial" celebrities, I think, arises mainly because they have created an explicit case of something that is implicitly true, globally, even for those of us who are not multimillionaire movie stars. By relocating to Namibia, Pitt and Jolie have simply provided a more geographically compact example of how much of the world works much of the time.

And for all the criticism the duo is due, it also seems to me that they've done some good with their Namibian exile. Movie stars shed money the way most of us shed skin cells, so why not shed it in Namibia, where it is needed more desperately than it is in Los Angeles?

That sounds, perhaps, a bit like the "trickle-down theory," but I'm not speaking here of public policy, but of private policy. Supply-side Reaganism has never worked except to redistribute wealth into the hands of a concentrated few while bankrupting the public treasury. What I'm trying to get at here isn't structural, but personal. Not Reagan, but Dickens.*

Here, again, is a snippet of George Orwell's appreciation of Charles Dickens:

The truth is that Dickens's criticism of society is almost exclusively moral. ... His whole ‘message’ is one that at first glance looks like an enormous platitude: If men would behave decently the world would be decent. ... Hence that recurrent Dickens figure, the good rich man. ...

It seems that in every attack Dickens makes upon society he is always pointing to a change of spirit rather than a change of structure. It is hopeless to try and pin him down to any definite remedy, still more to any political doctrine. His approach is always along the moral plane, and his attitude is sufficiently summed up in that remark about Strong's school being as different from Creakle's ‘as good is from evil’. Two things can be very much alike and yet abysmally different. Heaven and Hell are in the same place. Useless to change institutions without a ‘change of heart’ — that, essentially, is what he is always saying.

If that were all, he might be no more than a cheer-up writer, a reactionary humbug. A ‘change of heart’ is in fact the alibi of people who do not wish to endanger the status quo. But Dickens is not a humbug, except in minor matters, and the strongest single impression one carries away from his books is that of a hatred of tyranny.

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are rich people. And, provided the paychecks keep coming in, so am I (just ask the 5.6 billion or so people I'm wealthier than). One question, then, given the current shape of the world, is what does it mean to be, in Dickens' terms, good rich people?

Most of the world is more like Namibia than it is like Los Angeles, and Namibia will still be there whether or not we go over in person to stare it in the face. Pitt and Jolie provide a case study, of sorts. Theirs may be an extreme case, but it's not wholly different than mine, or perhaps yours.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* Part of the problem with supply-side trickle-down theory is that, unlike Dickens, it sees no virtue in virtue. It sees no need for "good rich men," only for rich men. Provide enough of those, it suggests, and goodness will, magically, take care of itself. The ideal rich man, according to this theory, is not Scrooge on Christmas morning, but rather Scrooge before his transformation. Dickens, like Orwell, regarded such theories as instruments of tyranny.

Comments

[Scorpio]

That richlist calculator is *scary*. I knew that most people in the world had little or nothing, but darn!

[Buhallin]

While I'm not challenging the accuracy of the calculator, or the fact that we're a lot better off than many other countries, the calculator is also quite misleading, IMHO.

While it is a great tool for inspiring guilt for our status, it's also making the mistake of inherently tying that status to material wealth. I may be richer than the starving Ethiopian, who needs a great deal of help, but I'm probably also richer than the Tibetan monk, who has not a care in the world for money and is probably far happier than I will ever be.

We can and should be doing a lot more to help those in the world who need it, but basing that solely on a dollar figure is just as narrow and bad as conservative "If they just worked harder, they'd be rich too..." thinking.

[Darryl Pearce]

...always a good read at the "Slacktivist." Thank you, Frank Clark.

I was once teased for finding "economics interesting" as we were vacationing in Porterville, CA spending money we made in Ventura County, CA. ...but, it was interesting.

Okay, at least it was remarkable.

[Bill]

Not to derail a splendid polemic against the selfishness and shortsightedness of rich Americans, but the AP reports that Jolie gives one-third of her income to various charities. (She also confirmed it in her CNN interview with Anderson Cooper.)

It's more than a tithe, at any rate.

[the opoponax]

i can't help but think that all this hemming and hawing about the global richlist calculator is nothing but the typically american inability to confront the idea that, yes, class exists. everyone in the US thinks they are middle class, or even lower middle/working class. everyone in the US, no matter what their bank accounts actually say, thinks they are 2 steps away from the poorhouse. even when, in actuality, they are doing a hell of a lot better than 90% of the planet.

the example has been frequently cited in other comments to other posts that "100K doesn't go far when you have a mortgage, 2 car notes, a couple kids to put through school, etc. etc." what we're really saying when we say things like this is that we consider the priveliges of home ownership, private education, etc. to be rights, necessities even, rather than the priveliges they really are. when we talk about "cost of living" in reference to the rich list, what we're really talking about is our collective sense of entitlement -- that we deserve an SUV and a bigger house; our kids deserve private school educations. that's not cost of living, that's keeping up with the Joneses.

if you make $50K per year, let's face it, you are doing a hell of a lot better than some Chinese peasant who makes $1000 a year. period. the Chinese peasant doesn't have a mortgage and two car notes because he/she can't afford to own a home or a car. not because the cost of living is more lenient in China.

when we classify ourselves as relatively poor because, hey, it's rough out there when you've got a mortgage (or student debt, or whatever), we diminish the realities of others who are truly needy.

[Gravity]

But there is truly a minimum standard that you have to meet, honestly.
If I were living in a dirt-floor shack with no electricity or running water, my town would condemn my home as a health hazzard and take it away.
So there is a level of quality of living that you are actually not allowed to go beneath in most parts of the USA.

[Buhallin]

Blind liberal angst doesn't help matters any more than denial does.

Whether we like it or not, cost of living is an important part of the calculation. You cannot compare $1000 that a Chinese farmer may make to $100,000 someone in New York City makes without considering cost of living. What are we supposed to do otherwise? Depopulate NYC?

That's the problem with the calculator. If all you look at is raw income, then you're corrupting data just as surely as conservatives do, and just as much a slave to mindless wealth.

According to the calculator, I make more money than 99.3% of the world's population. Does that mean that 99.3% of the world is starving and dying in horrible conditions, and needs my help?

The world is what it is. Only by working with what is can you improve anything. Silly denials and guilt-trip-inspiring calculators aren't going to accomplish squat.

[drinkcoffee]

I also have a problem with the "Rich List". How rich you are often has nothing to do with your income. In other words, income does not equal net worth. I may make $100,000/year but be millions of dollars in debt...according to the Rich List, I am richer than the widow on Social Security who has $100,000 stuffed under her mattress.

[Duane]

when we classify ourselves as relatively poor because, hey, it's rough out there when you've got a mortgage (or student debt, or whatever), we diminish the realities of others who are truly needy.

Or in other words, "Eat all your vegetables because some kid in Africa is starving."

[the opoponax]

no.

"eat your vegetables because..." is guilt to lay on children when their appetites don't fit your arbitrary notions of portion size.

understanding that we middle class americans are insanely priveliged compared to the many people worldwide who are truly needy is just acknowledging reality.

[Angelika]

I agree with Drinkcoffee, the simple income based "Rich List' is not an accurate measurement of actual wealth, because it does neither consider the actual costs of life - nor the money one already owns or oughs. The 'Rich List' also doesn't consider the costs of life. The value of a dollar changes considerably, depending on the country you want to spend it in. In the US the dollar value is lower than in many other countries.

Five years ago - the last time I went there - I could get a good dinner (=soup, rice, meat, and vegetables, and beverage) in Ecuador for a dollar in the countryside or two dollars in Quito. On my way back home, I had to pass several hours on the airport in Miami waiting on my connection flight. I got hungry and went for some food, eventually finding a vending machine selling one ice-sandwich for $6. - I decided on dieting.

Even in Germany, which is definitively not a poor country and presently has the strong Euro, the dollar buys more than in the US: For fresh fruit I'd pay in Germany the same dollar amount for a kg than in the US for a pound. (In Germany, the quality is often better, too. But that judgement might be biased by personal preferences.)

[Mike]

I also have a problem with the "Rich List". How rich you are often has nothing to do with your income. In other words, income does not equal net worth. I may make $100,000/year but be millions of dollars in debt...according to the Rich List, I am richer than the widow on Social Security who has $100,000 stuffed under her mattress.

Well, you may not be richer, but you'd definitely be more foolish. You'd also be reaping what you sowed yourself. I'd suggest the problem in this scenerio is not with the list. I've worked with people who were maling $1 million, but living like they were making $2 million. They were not victims of anything but their own greed.

[the opoponax]

also...

i don't think the global rich list is anything to base policy on. i don't think it represents a particularly sound understanding of the very nuanced economic world we live in today. but it's an interesting experiment, and it is truly valid in that it illustates just how much we westerners are able to take for granted. the $400 i make every week is equivalent to the yearly income of some of the poorest people on the planet. if i gave one week's pay to someone in the poorest parts of the world just one time, that would be the equivalent of bill gates writing me a check for $20,000. with $20,000 my whole world would change. think about how $400 would change the life of someone who sees that figure as a yearly income.

what if we did just give? what if i sat down and wrote up a perfectly sane budget, and then gave the rest of it to poor people in third world countries? i could probably live without $400 of smoothies or magazines or cab rides or chinese takeout. what if we lived in a world where such behavior was perfectly logical?

[Rob H.]

"The ideal rich man, according to this theory, is not Scrooge on Christmas morning, but rather Scrooge before his transformation."

Not exactly. Scrooge, pre-tansformation, was a miser and not prone to spread the wealth just by living. The actual ideal rich man is someone like Richard Branson or Hugh Hefner, someone who spends his riches living the high life without really thinking about the goodness it does. Throwing a party that employs a hundred people parcticing their craft does a whole lot more good than hoarding one's wealth.

[Buhallin]

And if every American gave $400 to someone in one of those countries, what would a tomato cost? Inflation is a very real thing. You cannot solve the world's problems by throwing money at it, and $400 here isn't the same as $400 there. That's the point several people here are trying to make.

And what exactly does it take to be "insanely priveliged (sic)"? Owning a house? If a farmer built his own house but I bought mine (with money earned from my own work), am I more privileged? If so, maybe the entire idea of exchange of goods is privilege. Or is it because I have a car to cover the 30 miles to my job each day, and the farmer who has to walk out into his fields doesn't? Maybe because I have a TV?

American privilege is privilege largely by the definition of Americans. Honestly, the more I'm exposed to this sort of thing, the more I think it's even more insulting than ignoring the problem. Yes, there are needy people out there. But a great deal of a society is self-sustaining. I'd LOVE to have an environment where I could walk to work. I'd even settle for a train. I don't have that. In that situation, owning a car is not a privilege, it's a necessity. But anyone who doesn't have what we have is underprivileged and needs help. Pfft.

[Rob H.]

"what if we did just give? what if i sat down and wrote up a perfectly sane budget, and then gave the rest of it to poor people in third world countries? i could probably live without $400 of smoothies or magazines or cab rides or chinese takeout. what if we lived in a world where such behavior was perfectly logical?"

Then you would wreck their economies as inflation skyrocked in those countries and your "gift" would eventually be like giving them nothing. The rich and powerful of those countries would find ways to get ahold of that massive influx of money through either force or coersion. Those people who couldn't get their allotment of cash would be out on the street, hungry unable to pay for the $10 apples that were $.10 last month.

[Jon H]

"Part of the problem with supply-side trickle-down theory is that, unlike Dickens, it sees no virtue in virtue. "

Another problem is that the part that is supposed to "trickle down" is also known as "inefficiency", which everyone in the economy is trying to minimize. Everyone wants to cut their costs. Companies want cheap labor and materials, consumers want bargains.

Celebrities, who are wealthy (or think they're wealthy) tend not to spend much time trying to trim the fat from their spending. Except for the cheapskates who don't tip well or shoplift.

[wintermute]

> But there is truly a minimum standard that you have to meet, honestly.
If I were living in a dirt-floor shack with no electricity or running water, my town would condemn my home as a health hazzard and take it away.
So there is a level of quality of living that you are actually not allowed to go beneath in most parts of the USA.

Does that mean that there is no-one in America living in a gutter, or in a shop doorway? No-one who can only afford to eat out of garbage cans? How has this miracle been achieved?

[Journ-O-LST-3]

"I'd LOVE to have an environment where I could walk to work. I'd even settle for a train. I don't have that. In that situation, owning a car is not a privilege, it's a necessity. But anyone who doesn't have what we have is underprivileged and needs help. Pfft."

Well, I have made it 26 years here in the US never owning a car.

This reminds me of a story I just made up. There was once a man who wanted to live in a house underwater three miles out to sea. He thought it was a good idea and had his house built. To leave his house he had to use SCUBA gear and a boat. He didn't like the costs of running his boat but he just didn't understand how any one could live without their boat or SCUBA gear.

And I'd also like to complain about the rich test. It leaves out far too many things and turns the whole of someone's life into a number. Were I doing it I would have added a few more questions, simple yes/no ones. "Do you have access to fresh water/health care/electricity?" And maybe one about having a stable government and when the last war was fought on your soil.

[the opoponax]

wow.

so we shouldn't give to the needy because it might create inflation and ruin their economies?

it's true, after all. rich idiots will try to rationalize ANYTHING in order to keep grasping onto those bank accounts...

[the opoponax]

after all the backlash on the richlist, i'm wondering what yall think of this similar calculator (which measures relative land use and access to ecological resources, rather than pure cash). it's much closer to Journ-O-LST's idea.

www.myfootprint.org

[Duane]

Does that mean that there is no-one in America living in a gutter, or in a shop doorway? No-one who can only afford to eat out of garbage cans? How has this miracle been achieved?

By the logic presented in this thread, those American garbage scavengers should be grateful for the good fortune that has allowed them to scavenge in such a wealthy country.

[cjmr]

Actually, I was puzzled by the footprint website, because it's set up as if the person filling it out was indicative of the lifestyle of the entire household (it takes the data you give it and multiplies it by the number of people in your household, if I remember correctly). If I fill it out--work from home, drive less than 50 miles per week and almost never alone--it underestimates our ecological footprint, but if the husband fills it out--commutes (alone) 50 miles per day, eats more meat, etc--it overestimates our ecological footprint. To be truly useful, it needs to allow each member of a household to enter their own information.

[Amy Yoder McGloughlin]

Fred

I agree. Those rich mega-stars get on my knerves I'm not a fan of the whole celebrity yukkiness, or of the talent of Brangelina. But you've got to admit, they are trying to use their influence to promote the needs of Africa. They paid a ridiculous amount of money to Namibia to have their baby born in that country. And they, along with my favorite celeb, Bono, put Africa back on the table, includincing legislation and funding to the very needy nation. It's no mistake that they chose the neediest contry in that continent to have their baby.

So, to Pitt, Jolie, and Bono, I say "thanks" for focusing our conversation on Africa again--in whatever way possible. Although, sadly, conversations about the war in the Middle East (and subsequently--money) will always supercede conversations about the wars in africa, because of OIL.

Thanks, Fred, the energy you put into the site. Since you came over for supper 2 years ago and I heard about Slactivits, I've been a faithful reader. :)

BTW--did you know Jolie is a spokes person for Church World Service?

[lightning]

Does that mean that there is no-one in America living in a gutter, or in a shop doorway? No-one who can only afford to eat out of garbage cans? How has this miracle been achieved?

No. He never said that. The Powers that Be have declared that it is better to sleep in a gutter or shop doorway than in a house with a dirt floor. (It's called "housing codes", if you want to look it up.)

[the opoponax]

it's not a per-household measure; the number of people in your household affects the overall size of your footprint (you use more resources living alone in a large detached home than you would by sharing a small apartment, for instance).

[Buhallin]

"Well, I have made it 26 years here in the US never owning a car."

I'm happy for you. I don't live in such a place. I live in a large, spread-out city with crappy public transportation. It's not entirely voluntary - this is where my work is, and my career somewhat mandates such an environment.

"wow.

so we shouldn't give to the needy because it might create inflation and ruin their economies?

it's true, after all. rich idiots will try to rationalize ANYTHING in order to keep grasping onto those bank accounts..."

No, that's not what anyone's saying, and if you truly think it is you're so locked in your little delusional world that I pray you never actually try to help anyone.

The point people are trying to make is that it's a lot more complicated than just "I can spare $400 a month, and so can you, and if we all did it the world would be a perfect place!" The numbers may seem that simple, but the actual impact of that would be disastrous. Sociology and economics are a lot more complicated than that. That's why the calculator is idiotic. It's nothing more than a guilt trip to try and convince people we can help more. Which we can, of course, but deceptive statistics aren't necessarily the best way to go about that.

[Matt McIrvin]

everyone in the US, no matter what their bank accounts actually say, thinks they are 2 steps away from the poorhouse. even when, in actuality, they are doing a hell of a lot better than 90% of the planet.

Everyone in the US except the super-rich actually is two steps away from the poorhouse (worse than that, actually, because there's often no poorhouse). The reason is that we do such a pathetic job here of providing basic services to even the temporarily needy. There's no denying that we're far better off than most people in Namibia or poorer places, and the calculator does a good job of showing that; but we're worse off than people with a lower per capita income in Western Europe. It's a matter of risk. Job loss when you're just scraping by, disaster wiping out your home, a job that is making you mentally ill but that you need to keep in order to retain health coverage--these things can utterly ruin an American in ways that don't pertain in some other rich countries. The powerful believe that changing things would invite moral hazard.

In airplanes, they always tell you to put your own oxygen mask on first. The US is a rich country, but in some ways it's still more like a Third World country than a normal rich country, and we might do a better job of helping people elsewhere if we can manage to get our own house in order.

[Scott]

No. He never said that. The Powers that Be have declared that it is better to sleep in a gutter or shop doorway than in a house with a dirt floor. (It's called "housing codes", if you want to look it up.)

When my church group went to Mexico on a 'mission' trip (college kids doing construction - sorry liberals, we went voluntarily), we all remarked that nothing we were doing would pass a US housing code. We didn't feel like we were exploiting anyone, tho.

[Angelika]

Buhallin wrote: 'The point people are trying to make is that it's a lot more complicated than just "I can spare $400 a month, and so can you, and if we all did it the world would be a perfect place!" The numbers may seem that simple, but the actual impact of that would be disastrous.'

While it's true, that several attempts to improve life-conditions in poorer countries did not quite have the effect one had hoped for - and some attempts did have very unfortunate byproducts. However, these previous mistakes in developmental help is a bad excuse for stinginess, because it is also true, that many help-organisations long since have learned to employ more sustainable methods that do result in lasting improvements, which strengthen local communities rather than debilitate them. There are by now plenty of organisations and projects to choose from in order to ensure that everyone's $400 would actually help and not damage, provided we were willing to donate them.

[Buhallin]

"However, these previous mistakes in developmental help is a bad excuse for stinginess, because it is also true, that many help-organisations long since have learned to employ more sustainable methods that do result in lasting improvements, which strengthen local communities rather than debilitate them. There are by now plenty of organisations and projects to choose from in order to ensure that everyone's $400 would actually help and not damage, provided we were willing to donate them."

I don't disagree with this. While far too much of any given donation goes to "overhead", rather than people who need it, it has gotten better.

The point that several of us are trying to make is that judging ANYTHING by that idiotic calculator is a very bad idea. It's overly simplistic, and all it does is produce a guilt trip which often results in knee-jerk, ill-conceived action.

If people want to help others, it should be based on the need of others, not just the fact that we make more money than they do. That's fallacious and simplistic. A Tibetan monk probably has about as much income as an Indonesian displaced by the recent tsunami - who needs help more? If all you look at is "Who makes less money than I do?", then the answer is "They both need it equally". That's pretty obviously not the case.

It's not a matter of rich people trying to hang onto their wallets - anyone who's disinclined to help the needy probably don't bother with the excuses. It's a sincere desire to see ACTUAL EFFORT to help, and not just an outlet for liberal guilt over the fortunate circumstances of our birth.

[Ray]

While far too much of any given donation goes to "overhead", rather than people who need it, it has gotten better

I think I've remarked before that the same people who complain about charity overhead would complain about charities 'throwing money down the drain' if they didn't do followups, or 'handing money over to dictators' if they didn't employ people to oversee how money is spent.

Of course the global rich list is a rough measure - it's a single number, for fuck's sake. But the simple fact is that anyone reading this blog, or looking at the rich list website, is much better off than the great majority of the world's population, and reminders of that are good.

[wintermute]

Gravity: But there is truly a minimum standard that you have to meet, honestly.
If I were living in a dirt-floor shack with no electricity or running water, my town would condemn my home as a health hazzard and take it away.
So there is a level of quality of living that you are actually not allowed to go beneath in most parts of the USA.

Me: Does that mean that there is no-one in America living in a gutter, or in a shop doorway? No-one who can only afford to eat out of garbage cans? How has this miracle been achieved?

Lightning: No. He never said that. The Powers that Be have declared that it is better to sleep in a gutter or shop doorway than in a house with a dirt floor. (It's called "housing codes", if you want to look it up.)

So is there a "level of quality of living that you are actually not allowed to go beneath" in America, or not? I'm not sure that saying that "you can't afford to live in a house that meets our standards, so we're going to take away the house you could afford" does anything to improve the quality of living of those in substandard housing.

Unless you think that a leaky roof is worse than no roof at all, and untreated water is worse than no water (and I'm not sure I can understand that logic), then punishing people who are almost at the approved standard of living by taking away what little they have does nothing but force people to stay beneath the approved standard of living.

[cjmr's husband]

punishing people who are almost at the approved standard of living by taking away what little they have

Republican policy in a nutshell.

Yes, our building codes mean that you can't buy or rent a dirt-floor shack as a residence. We also have programs to help people pay for housing.

Whether those programs actually help anybody is a discussion for another time; I'll assign blame to the people who won't fund them properly, Scott will say something about guns, taxes, and Wealth Redistribution as if it's a bad thing.

As I understand it, these days the "homeless" are supposed to go to a "shelter" run by a "charity", because the "gummint" can't do anything about it because those people "are just lazy".

[McJulie]

About a week ago I caught a bus in the University District for Seattle's University of Washington. A talkitive young woman got on the bus at the same stop. She was just coming from her job -- washing dishes or something like that, I didn't get the details -- and was complaining in a good-natured way about her two-hour commute to get to a tent city in Woodinville, where she lives. She was also complaining in a less good-natured way about the fact that the Good People of Woodinville are engaged in an ongoing fight to get the tent city shut down.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

You needn't be sorry, Scott. This liberal's little bleeding heart is truly warmed to hear that you went to Mexico to volunteer construction labor of your own free will. Why do you feel you have to apologize to liberals for that, even in jest?

[Indiana Joe]

Scott:
"...we all remarked that nothing we were doing would pass a US housing code."

Why wouldn't it have been, "up to code"?

[cjmr's husband]

Why wouldn't it have been, "up to code"?

I can only guess, but probably because the construction wouldn't be able to hold up to an earthquake (which never happen in Mexico) or the electric wasn't safe enough (no chance of fire in the desert).

Seriously, it's more likely that he meant that there were not enough electrical outlets (every six or eight feet in some states), or the windows were the wrong size (each bedroom must have a fire-escapable/burglary-capable window), or the plumbing used too narrow of pipes (winter burst hazard), or no central heating. A lot of our building codes are suited to our lattitude.

On the other hand, if he was building shacks with no plumbing, what good is the charity doing?

[janinsanfran]

Great post. Though I must admit I find the comments terrifying. How about we pay attention to the point and think about what it means that we have a society which cannot appreciate a generous rich person -- in fact thinks such a person might be doing harm. That attitude is morally sick.

[Hagsrus]

==On the other hand, if he was building shacks with no plumbing, what good is the charity doing?==

Presumably any shelter is better than none -- which kind of brings us back to the earth floor and doorway question.

But I'd be interested to know more. Was it something along the lines of Habitat for Humanity?

[Michèle]

> When my church group went to Mexico on a 'mission' trip (college kids doing construction - sorry liberals, we went voluntarily),

I don't understand this bit. Why "sorry liberals"? (Serious question; I honestly don't understand what you meant by that.)

[Brandi]

It's simple, Michele; posing as a Libertarian struggling against the EVAL LIBRULS makes him all moist in his special places.

[Michèle]

Scott wrote:
> When my church group went to Mexico on a 'mission' trip (college kids doing construction - sorry liberals, we went voluntarily),

I asked:
> I don't understand this bit. Why "sorry liberals"? (Serious question; I honestly don't understand what you meant by that.)

Brandi replied:
> It's simple, Michele; posing as a Libertarian struggling against the EVAL LIBRULS makes him all moist in his special places.

While that may be so, as a Recovering Libertarian myself (still registered as such here in California, but have been convicted by Fred to re-evaluate my political thinking & bring it more in-line with my religious beliefs), I still don't understand why he felt the need to include that "apology".

I am familiar with many programs in which high-school or college-aged kids or adults go to places such as Mexico to do construction and have never heard anybody, either liberal or conservative, ever say that it shouldn't be strictly voluntary.

So, what am I missing?

Oh, and in regards to the "US Building Codes" referenced in comments above, I may be mistaken, but I don't think there are any national-level codes. I think all building and zoning codes are either at the state level or the community level & they vary considerably. There may indeed be some areas of the US in which it is perfectly legal to have dirt floors, etc. I certainly don't think any dwelling is *required* to have electricity or running water - those particular codes would only be relevant if one chose to put such things into the building.

[Buhallin]

"we have a society which cannot appreciate a generous rich person -- in fact thinks such a person might be doing harm. That attitude is morally sick."

Really? Let's think about this.

If a "generous rich person" decides to redistribute his wealth, it's good! And if he chooses to redistribute that wealth by scattering handfuls of hundred dollar bills into the crowd at a football game, starting a riot, well, questioning that is "morally sick".

NOBODY here has said they don't appreciate "generous rich people" - Warren Buffet would seem to be a prime target if anyone was, given his recent actions. Strangely, nothing.

All anyone has suggested is that assistance must be granted RESPONSIBLY. Responsibility must exist in the real world, not the fiction of an overwrought liberal's Guilt Calculator. In the real world, it is quite possible for someone to do harm by giving away money.

[colin roald]

Buhallin: American privilege is privilege largely by the definition of Americans. Honestly, the more I'm exposed to this sort of thing, the more I think it's even more insulting than ignoring the problem. Yes, there are needy people out there. But a great deal of a society is self-sustaining. I'd LOVE to have an environment where I could walk to work. I'd even settle for a train. I don't have that. In that situation, owning a car is not a privilege, it's a necessity. But anyone who doesn't have what we have is underprivileged and needs help. Pfft.

Your reactions are vehement and confusing. Have you ever actually spent any time in a truly poor country? I can assure you that the vast majority of people there really really do want clean water and electricity and the ability to buy safe meat. Your rhetorical Tibetan monk exists, yes, but it's ridiculous to talk as if most people in poor countries are enlightened monks who live the way they do because they like it.

What does the fact that you'd love to be able to walk to work have to do with anything? The point is not whether you have spent your wealth wisely by buying a car. The point is that you can afford a car. It is an option for you, and that makes you rich by world standards. Period. This is simply a fact, and not one made up by an "overwrought Guilt Calculator".

But it's just a fact, not a moral prescription. You, or anyone here, can be a good rich person, or a bad rich person, or anything in between. This discussion, if it is about anything, seems like it ought to be about deciding what the difference is. If someone here has advocated actual action that seems irresponsible to you, please call it out. But it really sounds like you're the one getting overwrought and sarcastic about what you imagine other people might be thinking, rather than anything they've actually said.

[Jeff]

Scott:
We didn't feel like we were exploiting anyone, tho.

Well, you wouldn't, would you? If the children came home from 12 hours in the mines to be locked in a shirt factory that was a known fire hazard, the little crybabies should be glad for the job -- they're certainly not "exploited". You need a Big Bad Gommint to "expoilt" people.

Brandi:
posing as a Libertarian struggling against the EVAL LIBRULS makes him all moist in his special places.

Well said! Libertarianism isn't a philosophy or ideology for Scott. It's a fetish.

"eat your vegetables because..." is guilt to lay on children when their appetites don't fit your arbitrary notions of portion size.

As the daughter of parents who lived through the Depression, this statement was meant to remind me to be grateful that I, at least, had food to eat and that others are less lucky. In other words, don't play with it and don't take more than you can eat.

I wonder if different generations interpret this differently. I do know that you can chart generations by where exactly "people are starving". I believe after WWII, they used to say Eastern Europe for a while, then China, then Africa.