Russell Fox on Mormons and Wealth

Posted on May 26, 2010
Filed Under Philosophy, Religion | 20 Comments

Russell Fox, one of my favorite bloggers, is perhaps better known in general blogging circles than within Mormon blogs. He’s blogged regularly over at his private blog In Medias Res as at various popular political group blogs. Russell had up a fantastic post “Can a Good Mormon Make Over $100,000 a Year?” Now Russell is very liberal and I think that comes through in his post. But if liberal Mormons are sometimes criticized as having a tension between individual liberty and pushing government solutions to equity then conservative Mormons have a problem dealing with the problem of wealth. (This is especially true for the more libertarian oriented Mormons who often embrace a kind of Ayn Rand view of wealth and production)

I think Russell raises some excellent questions. Even if people disagree on the answers I think grappling with the question is very important. Where I think Russell doesn’t go far enough is in raising the question of opportunity costs. (Although this is raised in the comments at BCC)

That is let us say it is wrong to be earning all this money when there are so many around us in need. Why isn’t it also wrong to be slothful or pursue careers where we don’t earn money we could devote to the poor. If the banker making $500,000 a year spent on nice cars and a large mortgage is doing wrong, isn’t the person who takes an enjoyable career where they make little money also doing wrong? After all they could have been an engineer improving the world around them. I think that economically we have to take this issue of opportunity cost very, very seriously.

I raise this as many people place Hugh Nibley on a pedestal in this regard. Nibley was a famous critic of wealth at BYU. Unlike many university professors who like to raise the rhetoric but not live the lifestyle Nibley actually lived what he preached. He secretly paid for many people having financial trouble in his ward. While I certainly don’t in the least want to disparage Nibely, the fact is that he did what he enjoyed. And working in a library with all the texts he could ever want it seems to me that he had something not that different from a banker having a new BMW. But what if Nibley had instead become an engineer? Wouldn’t he have helped more people? If it was wrong for a banker to keep more than $100,000 isn’t it also wrong for Nibley to have spent all the time doing his beloved research?

Obviously I’m using Nibley as an example. But I think the same principle that urges Mormons to self-reflection if we focus too much on the personal accruing of wealth demands that we use our talents for others. If things like big screen TVs, expensive cars, travel or the like are wrong then not doing things we could have done is wrong as well. (Indeed some would say this is fundamentally the idea of Christ’s parable of the talents)

The other thing I wonder about is sacrifice in the short term to have more “entertainment” in the long term. For instance if I give up movies, eating out and all the small expenses most people have and then buy a Porsche 911 instead am I wrong? Of course Russell wisely saw the issue as a matter of self-reflection and not judgment of others and who was a sinner. However many people sacrifice for years in school and relatively low paying internships and then see the rewards later in life. (Say in their 40′s) Is it wrong to enjoy some of the fruits of their labor later in life beyond that $100,000 mark Russell raises given how little they enjoyed when young?

There’s lots of interesting questions in Russell’s thought experiment. Reflecting on such matters of justice are interesting and, I think, crucial for evaluating our lives.

Related posts:

  1. Russell on Damon Linker’s Religious Test
  2. Russell Fox Responds
  3. Russell & Whitehead on the Mind/Body Problem
  4. Best Philosopher of the 20th Century
  5. Nibley, Heidegger and the Goods of First and Second Intent
  6. Pluralism and Religious Epistemology

Comments

20 Responses to “Russell Fox on Mormons and Wealth”

If all you’re looking at is money, then you might have a point. But Nibley gave in other ways too. Thousands are blessed from the work he did. Many other professions are the same. Almost anyone who goes into teaching will not be able to donate much money, but they can have a huge impact on their students.

Those who go into professions where they make a lot of money have the option of spending it on themselves or on others (or a mix of both). Those who go into professions where they don’t make a lot of money may have more ability to help people in other ways, but they don’t have the option if spending a lot of money on themselves.

As someone in the first group, I can honestly say I have more respect for the hard-working, dedicated public school teacher making under $40,000/year than I do the millionaire who donates 20% of his income to charity. I also have a feeling that the teacher makes more of a positive impact on the world.

I think Nibley would have suggested that there was more to a career than simply enjoying it and making money. He probably would have mentioned that there are some things that we can take with us into the next life, and those things have far more utility than all the other things that we can’t take with us. Thus, while Nibley greatly enjoyed what he did, we was accumulating things which could be taken with him into the next life.

I’m not sure how this point would generalize in the context you have presented, but I think it does throw a wrench in the example you use.

But Nibley took a dramatic turn from a career that would have earned him a great deal of recognition from his peers to one that various church leaders asked him to pursue (he went on trips, for example, with Spencer W. Kimball acquiring research materials).

As a result, in his professional field he was seen as a brilliant man who was wasting his time on a frolic.

Just FYI.

It is a difficult question, as someone who makes more than $100k/year currently. After high school, when many of my friends were starting to work, taking vacations, skiing, etc., I spent 5 years in college, 2 years on a mission, 4 years in medical school, 5 years in residency, and another year in fellowship training. These were generally 80-100 hour weeks, with 120-140 hour weeks no uncommon at all. Finally, well into my 30′s, I started my first “real” job with tens of thousands in educational debt. It was hard to see my peers off doing life while I was stuck, but I chose to defer my “reward” (plus it was something I wanted to do).

So, is my making more than $100k now wrong? If I knew I would get paid $40k/year now would I have spent 15 years in training working 100+ hour weeks and not seeing my kids for days on end? The purist in me says I would still do it out of medicine being a “noble” profession. The realist in me says I probably wouldn’t.

Jeff, you are of course right. And TJ, I do of course recognize all the good Nibley did. I was using him more as an illustration of a point. That said, if (as Nibley himself believed) learning is orders of magnitude easier in the next life, then what is the value of learning all sorts of minutiae in this life?

My point was less about Nibley and more about academics in general who seem to value their pursuits as worthy but disparage the pursuits of the rich when in both cases both could have been doing far more with their resources. Even Nibley. Yes Nibley did a lot of good. But had he taken his immense intellect and pursued say cancer research would he have done more good? Like Russell I’m not advocating a particular answer here, just suggesting that opportunity costs are something we really have to consider.

Mike, if it wasn’t clear, I 100% agree. For instance I took a rather large pay cut to start my current business. I’ve had a ridiculous number of medical bills in the meantime, racked up a fair bit of personal debt, and have been working 12 – 14 hour days fairly consistently the past 5 years without a break. Would I *personally* feel guilty about spending a bit of the money when things take off on “frivolous things” for myself and my family? Not at all. Would I cease helping others? Not at all. Indeed I look forward to success precisely because I’ll have more time to do Church callings and charity work.

6 John Mansfield on May 27th, 2010 1:16 pm

A lot of attention goes to the consumption side of this (spending lots of money on yourself, spending your time the way you want to), but I think the production side is more the point that was being considered. Generating lots of output takes lots of input. In a setting where everyone is doing this it can feel like a race to reduce the Earth to a cinder. The world may be poorer if an energetic businessman slows down, but it may be more balanced and less destructive for all concerned.

John, I’m not quite sure what you’re saying. Could you clarify? I agree the focus is on consumption typically but that’s what I was trying get at with the opportunity cost analysis: that there’s other things we could be doing.

Would the world be better if an energetic businessman slows down? I’m skeptical. He’s producing jobs which enables others to have the standard of living they have. Our culture definitely does allocate a lot of resources on what seems at best status symbols or entertainment. But at the same time a lot of our resources (arguably the majority) go to things like providing adequate shelter (i.e. indoor plumbing, better air conditioning and heating, safer neighborhoods), better healthcare etc. Now can we deal with those issues better? Certainly. And that’s where a lot of the debate it.

I confess I’m far less impressed with arguments for a status quo and merely lowering our expectations. Maybe that’s not what you’re asserting though. So I really am interesting in what you are saying.

For me, part of the issue is dissuading the delusion that getting the next thing will finally make one happy, which is demonstrated by practically every (if not every) me-centered purchase we make. The novelty inevitably wears off and not having the next ‘improved’ version that will fulfill more of our desires (e.g., Droid, anyone?) becomes an issue of anxiety which is then lessened when we get it, only to start the cycle over again. Once you fully realize the vacuity of this persistent delusion, then the other issues of value and cost benefit will become clearer (though not fully answered). Whatever else can be said about utility (and I think the discussion so far has been illuminating, thought provoking, and important), I think taming this delusion is a good reason to relate very intimately with how much you make and what you do with it.

Yes, a predictably Buddhist approach from me, but one that I hope is useful in this discussion.

9 John Mansfield on May 27th, 2010 7:19 pm

Clark, what I am thinking about is that maximizing production of an individual can be expensive. Because an executive or scientist or whoever is spending large portions of his time producing, with little left over for living, he has to hire others to maintain his life for him and make other hefty expenditures to keep the wheels turning at a fast rhythm. Maybe he produces as much as five ordinary workers, but he consumes as much as three just to do it. Gigantism chasing economies of scale may be an exhausting dead end for society. Perhaps your chocolate business is an alternative to what I’m talking about. There are already companies turning out tons of chocolate every day, but you and Art decided to create your little factory that couldn’t dream of matching the efficiencies of Hershey or Mars because you want to craft a specialized, high-quality product for a small number of customers.

10 Michael Dorfman on May 28th, 2010 4:36 am

I think that the question is starting from the wrong premise. It doesn’t make sense to ask from the point of view of the individual, but from the point of view of the society. In other words, not “Can a good Mormon make over $X/year?”, but “Can a good Mormon live in a society that pays some people $X/year while others are in poverty?”

I happen to live in a country that has a very narrow income range– CEO salaries are usually about 2-5 times higher than that of a temporary, unskilled worker (emptying the wastebaskets), as opposed to the US where the multiplier is more like 25x-250x. It’s also a country that has more or less eliminate poverty. Everyone is provided a livable wage, housing and health care. It seems to me that the moral imperatives regarding earning $100,000/year in such a place are quite different than in the US.

Relatedly: for the first time in US history, a billionaire died and paid absolutely no estate tax. (http://www.registercitizen.com/articles/2010/05/27/opinion/doc4bfde5da730f4613807069.txt)

Put another way: the question isn’t “What Would Nibley Do?”, but rather, “What kind of a society would make this question irrelevant?”

Michael, I think that’s part of it but for Mormons there is a big tension between freedom and an ideal society. So Mormons have ideals but tend to think people should freely choose to embrace this. (This goes back to basic Mormon cosmology and the idea we all freely chose to come here in opposition to a plan where everyone would be forced to be good) Thus in discussions like this you tend to have a strong libertarian streak mixed in with a strong communitarian streak. It leads to some interesting discussions. (And this wasn’t Russell’s first post along these lines) Of course this then leads to a debate about how high taxes are tied to freedom but I’ll not get into that debate.

John, I’m not convinced one should maximize production – nor do I think Russell is either. That leads to some odd situations and a debate over that tends to get into boundary cases that distract from the real issues at hand. (IMO) Rather we ought at least start the discussion by agreeing whether there are areas of inequality or service that just should be off limits. However even here I think things are more complex. (Which was ultimately the point of my post)

I think Russell’s real point though is what can we do on our own within this existing culture.

I’m also pretty skeptical that a businessman needs utilize others to achieve their efficiencies. Also efficiency is itself a complex issue. Consider the example you gave of my own business. The problem is, however, that Hershey and myself aren’t really even making the same sort of product! So it is comparing apples and oranges unless one neglects the subtle nuances of the product in question. (Which I think is an unfortunate tendency among some Marxist analysis of production — not that you are doing a Marxist critique in the least)

Kevin, I agree that “stuff” doesn’t make people happy. Interestingly most of the psychology I’ve read on the subject suggests that it is experiences that do. Stuff can be related to experiences of course. For instance after my first job I spent about $2000 on ice climbing gear plus bought an SUV. But some of my best memories and happiness came out of that. Whereas had I spent that same money on video games and big screen TVs I probably wouldn’t have been as happy. So I think things are complex.

That said I’m very skeptical that stuff doesn’t have an effect on well being. (One reason why I think happiness measures don’t capture a lot that is significant in a society) For instance indoor heated plumbing, advanced medical care, toilet paper and a lot of other things are all stuff most people never had. And who managed to be quite happy without it. But I’d not want to give up that stuff because I think it does have a significant effect on my well being and happiness.

Clark,

I’m certainly not saying that “stuff” doesn’t have “a significant effect on…well being and happiness.” Contrary to the recent Pew Poll, most of the research on happiness in positive psychology say that money brings greater happiness only up to the point where basic needs are met; after that point, the gain is marginal at best, even as you get higher and higher up the pay scale. I would also add, given your ice climbing/SUV story, that its connection with the visceral, as opposed to the more disconnected TV/video game playing (even though I do both), is also a ground for your cultivated happiness as I’ve personally found greater happiness in such activities than in my more disconnected activities (I think there’s something there).

That said, there is also the cultural basis for what is considered “essential”, with the American market crying out for us to consider everything as essential by spuriously connecting (through commercials) things as vapid as buying a luxury car to things as important as cultivating peace of mind. In my mind, in my current bachelor period of my life, I could live like a king if I made $36k a year (after taxes). I could buy a modest house, “green” it up, pay off all of my debts in 4 years (except, of course, the house at that point), and I would be incredibly content in my life because, in my current point of relative poverty, I’ve learned to be content with what little I have (the only things I have a relatively strong desire for, but don’t have, is internet, basic cable, and Netflix, which wouldn’t take much financially). This also includes the job: I currently work at a movie theater, which is incredibly monotonous work, but I’m relatively content, even while I try to find better paying work. I occasionally complain about things, particularly the disconnect between the upper-level management and reality (and the difficulties that often causes with their dictates), but overall I enjoy it. I imagine that contentedness will follow me into my next job (particularly if I continue my meditation practice).

Sorry if that was too biographical or soap-boxy, but there ya go! In short, I think we generally agree. :o)

I think we generally agree as I feel the same way. I think that were health care less prone to catastrophic effects most Americans would be much happier. That’s about the only big thing Americans really “need” (outside of a job – and as you note you really don’t need a high paying job)

I think that this conversation perhaps ignores “the unsearchable riches of Christ” who also taught to lay up treasures in heaven where moth & rust cannot corrupt. It isn’t the dichotomy between wealth or poverty in this life, it is about poverty in the life to come. Get as rich as you want with human treasure in this life, but serve the coming Prophet/Priest/and King. Don’t be like the rich man who wanted to warn his brothers of the tortures he was experiencing in hell. As Christ said, If a man doesn’t heed the law & the prophets, he will not be convinced though a man rise from the dead. We all need the Savior most of all.

Go to Youtube: Edy Meredith

Ann, that begs the question of how we lay up such treasures. Seriously – I think most of us recognize that we have a responsibility to our family but also want at least a few things for ourself. (To relax if nothing else) The question then becomes how to balance things in our life. I think it interesting that, at least as I see it, the gospel gives us responsibility but ultimately doesn’t tell us what to do. It offers the call but it is up to us to fulfill it.

The Biblical scriptures are very clear about how to lay up “such treasures”. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength, and love thy neighbor as thyself. This is the guiding principle, not how do we divide our responsibilities in order to get a few things for ourselves. The balance comes by putting God first, and all other things will follow, to paraphrase the scripture. Jesus came to serve, not to be served. And his followers must do the same.
To be a Christian means to be a little Christ.

Ann, once again they are clear but in highly abstract ways. The problem is moving towards specific choices.

You obfuscate. When I want to know what someone believes, I don’t just listen to their words. I watch their works as well.

I’m not obfuscating at all. The key issue is moving beyond words into actions. But how do we know what acts line up with the abstractions we profess belief with?

I think you see as a non-issue what is a very apparent and very real issue.

Leave a Reply