Economics 101

So I came to work the other day and had this forwarded email to me:

Subject: Economics 101

Whether you agree with Dr. Rogers political conclusions or not, you must agree that he makes an interesting point...

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, offered the following observation several years ago and it bears great Significance today: 


"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation." 

"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it." 

The person who sent this to me will remain annoymous, and be called "Sender".  But I have a great deal of respect for this gentleman.  He is a devout Christian.  He, if you can't tell, is also very much a Republican. I would consider myself a moderate, but most would consider me a liberal.  Don't we all like to avoid labels?  The "Sender andI have had many discussions over religion and politics.  I was disappointed in what I percieved as a lack of his understanding of the poor.  Anyway, I felt compelled to respond and here is my response:

I believe the fallacy in this argument is the presumption that people don't want to work and people don't want to take care of themselves. There may be a few who don't want to provide for themselves, but I believe most just want an equal opportunity. Most of the people I have talked to, when pressed, want to be self sufficient even if they say they want a hand out. It is convenient to look at the underresourced and assume that their situation is completely the result of their own doings because it absolves us from recognizing our position of privledge. While we demonize the poor, we make heroes of the wealthy assuming they are self made. I know of no person who is completely self made. Our society likes to look down upon the poor because it allows us the higher moral ground when we assume that others are simply too lazy to work hard. When you get to know more people who make bad choices you realize that they aren't that much different then yourself. 

What we fight for and what we try to defend is usually a good indication of our own insecurities. That is why when I read a statement like that below, I am quick to counter, because at one time I was one of the half that needed help. I needed somebody to pay for my medical bills so I could survive, and my mom didn't have the money. I don't want to believe that I am an indicator of "the end of a nation." Think of my mom in that situation, do you think she didn't want to work, or do you think that perhaps all her hard work wasn't producing enough money to pay for a decent standard of living? I promise you the 16 hour days she worked was definitely hard work. After watching her, I can see why some give up, as now she is 62 and still working well over 60 hours a week. Comments like these, especially when income inequality is at an 80 year high, strikes a nerve. Ironic, income inequality is at an 80 year high, while we are in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s, which happens to be 80 years ago. I am not insinuating causation, but I am almost certain there is correlation.

The truth is the poor get discouraged because it doesn't matter how hard they work, they feel like they will never have a decent living. While my mom has worked well over 60 hours a week, I know of business owners who work16 hours a week but makes over $500,000 a year. What separates my mom and this business owner? One particular business owner was given a business after he was writing bad checks all over town and nearly bankrupt. He is not smarter; he is not better than my mom. His wealth was created through the backs of people like my mom. I believe his arrogance, greed, and power are a better indication of "the end of a nation" than a kid who would die without a "handout." 

Comments like these (Dr. Nelson's) do nothing but drive a stake through the "have-nots" while allowing the "haves" to step on that pedestal. I ask you "Sender", did you feel good about yourself when you read this? Did it feel good to press send? Did you do it with a loving heart? It didn't feel good when I double clicked and read. And when I think about it, when I go to hit send, I will do it with anger and love. I am angry that I do not feel understood. I am angry that some kids right now are starving. I am angry that in our country of wealth there are some who don't feel like they have a chance. I love the fact that God has given me a voice to change perceptions, and I will fight to do it. I love the fact that God put me here at this moment. I pray that this brings Glory to God. 

There are some very minor changes I made above from the original email to protect some people.  The gentleman's response to me is below:

Shane, 

I certainly meant no offense and I hope you realize that I understand and appreciate your perspective on things. However, I think you have to understand that there are two sides to any argument. And just because I have a different opinion on economics does not mean that I am attacking you or your family. In fact it's families like yours that gives me hope for this nation. I realize that for many people it is governmental support that has kept them alive and for that I am grateful. I am every bit as adamant about supporting the poor as you are. The difference is that I do not believe it is the governments role or responsibility. I believe the church should take care of orphans, widows and the poor. We both want those less fortunate supported and helped, we just think that the help should come from different places. I am truly sorry to have offended you, believe me I meant no disrespect on you or your family. To answer your question regarding "How I felt when sending the email"... Believe me if I had thought that this email was going to offend you I would not have forwarded it. I tried to make it clear in my opening statement that I was presenting one side of the argument, not forcing any political agenda's on anyone. I will be more careful in sending political emails in the future. 

Your Brother in Christ, 
Sender

Like I said before, I have a great deal of respect for this person.  He is a very strong Christian, but we have had many conversations and I feel like he really doesn't understand the situation for the poor.  I still didn't feel like he did so I replied again:

Sender,

I do not take offense personally, I realize you don't understand what it is like or what your words do. I just want you to realize how passing on an email like that makes others care less about the poor. I hope you understand that there are more people like me out there than those who just want to live off somebody else. I also know that you meant no harm, but to me, this is not a mere political matter, nor is it merely an "argument." While economics for most of us here is simply the difference between a new car and a used one, it is life and death for many. 

You are right, the church should do more. The problem is that the church protects their own. It does a poor job reaching out to the underserved even in our own towns. The church has been no more successful, and I would even argue less than the government, at helping people through hardships. Do you think mom was going to church when I got sick? When is the last time your church paid for somebody's medical bills over $100,000? How about somebody who didn't go to your church? When was the last time your church brought in somebody from the east side as a new member? When is the last time your church paid for somebody's college that wasn't a member? If it was up to the church, I would be dead. The church is failing, and it is not because of the government. The church is failing because we are sinful. Too often we use charity to feel better about ourselves rather than make a difference. We give not in love, but in self adoration. We don't care about the person on the other end, we don't care about their story, we just like to say we did our part. This is why there is not enough funds in the church. We just really don't care enough, and we take a bad attitude. 

We care less about others when we feel like they are lazy. We feel like we don't need to reach out to them, for they are making their own bed to sleep in. Statements like the one sent embolden people to care less. 

I want you to send me the political e-mails. I want you to think about what you are sending. Get to know some poor people. Get to know why they are poor. Learn who they are and why they are that way. You will be surprised.

I care a lot about what the church is doing.  My church is attempting to do more for the underprivledged, and we have outreaches to many places.  We are attempting to do more on the east side of Waterloo, but it is hard.  

Any of the times I said we in the email, I mean to include myself.  I am guilty of not necessarily giving out of the goodness of my heart, but a feeling of obligation.  I would like to think I am sacrificing while I give, but if I want something, I get it. I must remember that I must change myself before I try change others. 

The Sender's response was:

Fair enough Shane. Each is entitled to their own opinion. Despite our difference of opinion I do appreciate your desire to see the poor taken care of as I desire the same thing. 

He may have been busy or had any other number of valid reasons to basically not respond.  I have a feeling it was simply that he didn't want to continue the conversation.  Either I am annoying, I am overbearing, I make him mad, or he doesn't like to be pushed.  For everyone who reads this?  think of these questions I asked the sender of this email.  Look inside yourself, what are your motivations.  Who is your church reaching out to?  If you don't go to church, let me know why.  

On the whole, I believe the rich end up benefitting a great deal more from public goods than the poor. Without roads, business owners couldn't get their employees to work or move their goods. Without the military, policeman, and courts, the rich would be succeptible to lose their wealths.  Without public schools, the business owners wouldn't have educated employees.  This is not to say I don't believe the poor benefit from public goods. The poor just have less to lose.

Lasting thought: Do you think people would rather have a hand out or be self sufficient?