Saturday, June 23, 2012

Letter from the One Percent

4 comments
The purpose of this letter is to put a face to the ones who are often so hated by much of the populace (the now-defunct Occupy Wall Street movement epitomized this attitude) for being wealthy, “The One Percent” as they are called.  In particular, they are the ones that have an approximate income of over 500,000 dollars per year.  The resentment, wherever it stems from is beyond the scope of this piece.  To that end, I have written a story conflated from the anecdotes of four individuals with whom I am acquainted in real life to various degrees. All the stories are true. 


Dear Occupy Wall Street,
Let me begin by posing a question: if someone were to make an unkind generalization about a certain group of people, what would you call it?  What is the word for hating individuals based on some aspect of them?  It would be called prejudice, ageism, sexism, racism, etc.  These things are all highly frowned upon in the modern world and yet one group remains that is fashionably hated by you and in popular culture.  “Income-bracket-ism” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as the others, but the same mean spirit pervades them all.  So why do you hate the most wealthy of America, the “One Percent” as you call us?  Is it from jealousy?  Does it seem to be unfair?  Is it because if your minds, we are the ones that “steal” money from the hard working people like you?  Let me ask you a question: have you ever thought that we may deserve the paychecks we receive?  After all, shouldn’t a person be compensated for the value they create in the economy?  A factory worker and an investment banker both do work that makes the world better off.  It is different work, but they both add value and so deserve their compensation. 

But you reply: why the huge gap between what I earn and what the average American earns?  What did I do to deserve so much more?  Well it turns out that I do a lot more work than the average American.  Have you heard of the hundred-hour work week?  That’s my life as an investment banker.  Do you think I go home at 5 to my wife, kids, and dog?  No!  Work takes the vast majority of my time.  Perhaps you ask, “What kind of life is that with so much work?”  I sense a tone of judgment but respond that you have no right to judge my lifestyle any more than I do yours.  Though, to be fair, I will only be doing this for a few years because I have other plans for the future.  Further, you should know that I don’t do it for the money.  As one wise man said, “my paycheck is seeing my ideas implemented!”  Everyone knows that money doesn’t buy happiness but they live like it does.  The truth is: I work for the thrill of the hunt and a love of the game.  The job itself, “seeing my ideas implemented” gives far more satisfaction than a fat paycheck.

I also want to let you Occupiers know that you don’t get your way just by complaining and whining about it.  I learned this lesson at a very young age when my parents didn’t just hand me everything I wanted.  Here’s the secret to actually getting something: you have to work for it.  Another lesson I learned: if you don’t grind, you don’t shine.  Ask anyone who makes six figures how they got there.  They won’t say it was handed to them and it certainly wasn’t handed to me.  In college, when my peers would get drunk and high, I studied.  When they wasted their time on whatever it is that college kids waste their time on, I studied.  During the summers, I worked.  I worked in a recycling warehouse forty hours a week and was subjected to terrible verbal abuse.  With the money I made, I saved and invested when my co-workers blew their paychecks on second Xboxes…despite sometimes being on welfare.  When the burden of that life seemed too much to bear, I remembered that it was only temporary and that it was simply part of the grind before the inevitable shine.  In another job, I was promoted before people who had more experience and knowledge than me for one reason: I worked harder than the rest.  Experience is just a matter of time and knowledge can be gained, but a strong work ethic comes from within and can only be taught to oneself.  I do not tell you this to boast, but because I want you to know that diligence is rewarded.

A common complaint, a stereotype, is that the “One Percent” are corrupt crooks that prey on everyone else’s money.  Well it isn’t unfounded because that has certainly happened.  But I wish to remind you that any other person might do the same thing if given the opportunities that my peers were.  After all, don’t you know poor people that are also inclined to unkindness?  Do you know people who are wealthy but kind and generous?  Do you know poor people that are kind and generous?  Income is a terrible judge of a person.  All that income tells you about someone is how much money they make.  Furthermore, people have identities outside of their work!  Who I am is not tied to what I do.  I get far more satisfaction from and find meaning in giving of myself for the betterment of others.  I use my business experience to go to the Third World and teach people how to start and manage their own businesses.  I provide them with loans to buy equipment, amounts too great to be filled by microloans but that banks will not provide because the recipients do not qualify for them.  Again, I don’t tell you this to brag because I’m sure that many people do what I do, as would many more if they had the opportunity.  But as it stands, everyone does their piece for humanity according to their means and their contributions are all valuable.  In light of this, I ask that you give up your hatred for me and my peers and direct your energies to more constructive ends. 
            Sincerely, a person just like you



You know he made Microsoft, but he does other things too. 

4 comments:

  1. I believe "classism" would be the proper term here, even though it's usually employed by leftists. I agree with pretty much everything that's said here, but if these benevolent rich people are giving to charity anyway, why would political change make a difference for them? They're giving to charity anyway, even if public accountability might nominally diminish the "thrill of the hunt and the love of the game" for some. The "corrupt crooks that prey on everyone else’s money," on the other hand, are the result of a system that secures and encourages their predatory activity, and this is what many of the Occupiers have a problem with.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that the problem with political change, more taxes, is that people tend to not like their money taken forcibly from them and redistributed to people on welfare, which is where a sizable chunk of tax dollars go. Forced altruism isn't satisfying. Plus it perpetuates welfare and having personally worked with people on welfare, I have much less sympathy for them than I used to. They often, not saying this is the case with all of them, enjoy a standard of living beyond my own in some aspects than I do...at the cost of my tax dollars. Again, not saying that's universally true. But I've had a chance to see a lot of their lifestyles, and it's reckless because the government just hands them money. Voluntary charity would direct resources to places where the benefactor chooses, to causes he believes are genuinely worthy and not places where most of the money oozes through a bureaucracy and the last drops get spent on lottery tickets, cigarettes, and second Xboxes.

    I imagine greater transparency wouldn't be a bad thing for some companies. But I'd still maintain that the crooks aren't exceptionally evil and, not to justify it, but did what a lot of people would do if given the opportunity. Monetary irresponsibility, which is essentially what OWS pins as the cause of the financial crisis, happens at all levels of business and in all industries. In other words, the actions of a few people doesn't justify classism and hatred to everyone else in the same category of work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think the problem I have with the current "class system" is not with individual rich people - I believe that virtue tends to make one wealthier, not poorer, although I don't subscribe to the ridiculous "health and wealth gospel" - but with the way the system is set up. The wealthy who abuse their power are far more dangerous than the poor who abuse what "power" they have, and the nation's laws need to reflect this by preventing and, when necessary, punishing unethical business practices and employer discrimination. Yes, welfare fraud is a serious problem, and yes, the government needs to put more teeth into preventing it - especially in states like Massachusetts, where it's much more popular to decry the plight of the poor than it is to point at government waste and the abuse of tax dollars. But the actual scale of that fraud, in terms of dollars spent and wasted on the unneedy, is relatively small compared to the size of tax breaks and cuts that the wealthy enjoy.

    It seems wrong to me that in a time of trillion-dollar deficits and unusual suffering (unusual for the First World, at least), many of those who can best afford to shoulder the burden of getting the country back on the right track are instead fighting tooth and nail to protect their tax cuts and corporate subsidies, to say nothing of the regulations in acts like Dodd-Frank. From those to whom much is given, much should be expected. And nearly all of the wealthy have indeed been given much - they usually have special intelligence and special talents, and they have been lucky enough to be born in a time and a place where those gifts can earn them millions. It is fair and reasonable to expect much from them - even just.

    Voluntary charity is wonderful, but it's clear that charity alone cannot provide for everyone's needs. Nor do I find it credible that, if freed from taxes, the wealthy would suddenly take care of the poor more effectively than our social safety net now does. Even now there is easily enough money in the hands of the well-off to take care of all real need. Yet need still exists, and it needs to be met somehow - whether it be by preventing banking abuses that harm the vulnerable, closing legal loopholes that enable consumer fraud, raising taxes on the wealthy and slashing wasteful government programs (including some that inefficiently aid the "needy") to close the deficit that is indirectly harming the economy, or by fixing broken schools to give children the chance to learn enough to compete in a global market.

    This is not a direct rebuttal to the excellent letter above, or to you, Daniel, more of a reflection on what I find to be the better principles of the OWS movement. Every movement tosses nonsense, blame and hateful ideas around, because movements always attract the disaffected, the lazy, those determined to blame others for their problems. But they also invariably attract good ideas that we should listen to. "The 99%" do not merely hate the rich. They want justice, and those of us who can help them get it should strive to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eh, monetary responsibility happens everywhere, but the "1%" are often powerful enough to get government intervention on their behalf, whereas normal folks would be punished naturally by the market.

    The welfare state is definitely a bureaucratic mess, but I think part of the reason for that may be because politicians are too busy trying to please the super-rich to improve it. But there's also research funding, education, public transportation...a lot of options that would boost efficiency all over the map.

    Forced altruism isn't satisfying, but again, it might be the same system that enables Bill Gates' satisfaction that also enables the ne'er-do-wells'. I would prefer a system where you have to pay to some public good, but you can choose which one.

    ReplyDelete