Conspicuous consumption

My hero Peter Singer just wrote a nice little piece about conspicuous consumption called Why Pay More.

I often blog about conspicuous consumption, but rarely name it. To me, it is perhaps the most disgusting and most damaging way of being selfish. In a nut shell, conspicuous consumption is "keeping up with the Jones's" - spending resources on unnecessary or luxury items as a way of signaling status. Examples of conspicuous consumption include purchases of designer clothing/accessories/furniture, oversized living spaces/cars, pedigree companion animals, weddings, lavish vacations, and any purchase you'd want to brag about or that would impress your peer group. Think about purchases or experiences you post on Facebook. Think about your boards on Pinterest. Can you see conspicuous consumption at work in your own life?

The reason that I believe conspicuous consumption is worse than private indulgence is conspicuous consumption places social pressure on others to spend as you spend. Not only do you use your own resources selfishly, but you encourage others to do the same. Even worse, there's a "one-upping" that's expected - you spent 5 days in London, but I spent 5 days in London AND 3 days in Rome. And all that unnecessary spending could have saved lives.

Extremely large, public gifts to charity are also considered conspicuous consumption, as they raise the status of those making the gift. This is the one form of conspicuous consumption I support and applaud, for exactly the reason I stated above: it encourages others to do the same. The charitable gifts made by Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet have made way for other billionaires to follow suit.

Conspicuous consumption is deeply embedded in American culture, self-identity, and group-identity. It is extremely important to recognize the way in which conspicuous consumption directs our spending habits, and thus "ties up" money that we should be free to give away.

To change our culture, to value compassion over selfishness and altruistic actions over "stuff", we must celebrate and elevate those who defy conspicuous consumption, like Uruguay's 'poor' president Jose Mujica. And we should feel disgusted and outraged by public displays of luxury and indulgence, not envious.


-Selfish Blogger

What the world eats

Check out these images of a weeks worth of groceries for families in various countries. Fascinating. I assume that when the image shows a family of four, the groceries are for four people. And when the image shows a family of eight, the groceries are for eight people. Not sure if that's the case or not, but interesting to see anyway. Pay attention to the food available for the African countries. Easy to guess who is living below the global poverty line.


-Selfish Blogger

Mind the wealth gap

I've been having conversations with people on opposite ends of the political spectrum about wealth inequality and extreme poverty. And I can't help but feel that liberals and conservatives are looking at the problem through very different lenses. It results in a feeling of "talking past" one another. No one feels heard. No one feels understood. And while these conversations can be terribly frustrating, I think I have finally spotted why communication breaks down.

Liberals tend to see extreme poverty as a systemic problem - one in which most poor individuals face insurmountable obstacles to improving their circumstances. Conservatives tend to see extreme poverty as an individual problem - one in which most poor individuals make bad choices or lack the character traits necessary for financial success. These two different views seem pretty obvious now that I've written it on the page, but they've been invisible to me in all but my most recent conversations.

Take a look at how the videos below frame the conversation.








Coming from a liberal perspective, I think the first video is fantastic. The second video, to me, is downright insulting.

The next time you find yourself discussing wealth inequality and extreme poverty, pay attention to the way each person is framing the issue. You just might be able to make that conversation productive, instead of talking past one another.


--Selfish Blogger

80,000 Hours

"How can I make the world better?" is a question every compassionate person has asked themselves - sometime in response to a very specific situation that involves the suffering of another, or sometimes in the abstract. For me, career choice has been part of my answer to that question. I saw two possibilities in front of me: either I make a lot of money in the for-profit world while helping (essentially) no one, or I make less money in the nonprofit world while helping others.

The compassionate individuals behind a new nonprofit called 80,000 Hours have offered a third option: make a lot of money in the for-profit world, and give most of it away.

In the your life, you will spend about 80,000 hours at work. Shouldn't you use that time to make the world better? I've chosen to work in the not-for-profit world so that my 80,000 hours are put toward helping others, rather than increasing my own wealth. But lots of compassionate people are drawn to the nonprofit sector. Even with the low wages, I've not seen charities struggle to fill open positions. But every nonprofit struggles for money.

What if more compassionate people were to take high-wage jobs, then fund the salaries of nonprofit employees? Instead of accepting a $40,000 annual salary and directly delivering services at a nonprofit, I could accept a $120,000 annual salary in the for-profit world, keep $40,000 for myself, and give $80,000 to pay TWO people to directly deliver services at a nonprofit. I could double my impact!

I haven't posted in the last year because, in addition to working full-time, I've been going to night school and studying for my CPA license. I may be leaving the nonprofit sector, and I may be earning a six-figure salary in a few years time. How I spend the rest of my 80,000 could be drastically different, and much further removed from helping others. Will I have the self-discipline to give most of my money to charity, and continue living a modest-wage lifestyle?


-Selfish Blogger

Goodbye Father Dollar Bill

Maurice Chase, AKA Father Dollar Bill, was an LA legend. A priest by training and a fundraiser by trade, Father Dollar Bill went to skid row every week to give money to the poor - $1 at a time. He didn't care how the money was spent, and he didn't withhold from anyone. When he had given away all his dollar bills (between $2,000-$2,500 on a normal Sunday, up to $15,000 on Christmas and Thanksgiving) he would return home. Father Dollar Bill died on Sunday, and it seems as if no one will step in to take him place. Would you?

Some have criticized Father Dollar Bill, that his actions fell short of doing real good or making lasting change. Can a dollar buy much? No, not much. But it can buy a bottle of clean water or some cheap food. And for those who have nothing, that's quite a lot. He had no overhead. He solicited directly from the rich and redistributed directly to the poor, counting Bob Hope and Frank Sinatra among his donors. Besides, Father Dollar Bill didn't care about the money, he was giving the gift of human love. From his obituary in the LA Times:

He began every trip to skid row with a prayer about serving the poor: "When you have done it to the least of men, you have done it to me." Then he prepared the stacks of new dollar bills he had withdrawn from the bank earlier. "Everything is so dirty on skid row," he told the Los Angeles Daily News in 2004. "I want to give them something fresh and new."

For those who criticize his methods I would ask "have you done more?" Though there may be flaws in his plan, Father Dollar Bill's actions were direct, easy to replicate, and honest. I am too selfish to do what Father Dollar Bill did, even though I am capable. I don't want to spend the time fundraising, nor do I want to stand on skid row with thousands of dollars in my pocket. I would fear for my safety, and I would feel uncomfortable surrounded by some many who need so much.

But I have hope that someone less selfish than me, perhaps someone who has their basic needs met through a large inheritance, will pick up where Father Dollar Bill left off to continue spreading hope and sharing wealth.


-Selfish Blogger

Even the Rich Want a Change

Perhaps you've already seen Warren Buffett's brilliant opinion piece in the New York Times called Stop Coddling the Super Rich. If not, it's worth a read (he asks for higher taxes on the rich - especially those who "earn" their money through investing alone!).

Warren Buffett is one of the super rich who has pledged to give away a substantial portion of his wealth to charity, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, rather than pass all of it to his heirs. He's seen what happens to children that inherit all their wealth, and knows it's better for the poor and his heirs if his wealth passes to those who truly need help. Well done Mr. Buffett!

CREDO Action has released a petition asking the Senate to act on Warren Buffett's request for higher taxes on the rich. I signed it.


-Selfish Blogger

Let's Hear it for the Death Tax

It's about time someone stood up for the estate tax - that fairly painless bringer of equality, insurer of social mobility, and bane of the Republican party.

Repealing the federal estate tax, often assigned the pejorative term "death tax", was a top priority for George W. Bush. In 1997, the federal estate tax rate was 55%, with a deduction of $600,000. In other words, if a loved one died and left me $600,001, I would pay $0.55 in federal estate tax. Laws signed by Bush gradually brought that rate down to 35% and the deduction up to $5,000,000, until the estate tax was eliminated all together in 2010.

What's wrong with no estate tax? Shouldn't hardworking individuals be able to leave their wealth to their children? After all, these people didn't work all their lives to give money to the government. That's true, but let's consider how much unearned wealth is being transferred.

With $5,000,000, I could draw a $50,000 annual salary for 100 years. A family could comfortably live off the interest of this inheritance for generations, without ever working for a paycheck or contributing to society. Look no farther than the celebrity socialites of rich parents, and you can make the case that it is actually harmful to be the recipient of large sums of unearned wealth.

What happens to our society if large sums of wealth pass from family to family, without ever requiring these people to work, and where their livelihood is secured through inherited ownership? What does it mean for democracy and social mobility if there are generations of families who, simply through lucky birth, are ensured a life of leisure and luxury through no efforts of their own? I can't help but be reminded of feudalism in medieval Europe, or the deeply impoverished countries with a handful of super wealthy families that we see today.

Rather than opposing such a tax, I think the ultra-rich should be proud to pay their fair share into a system that created space for their success. Our government provides a legal system to enforce their contracts, a patent office to protect their intellectual property, and officers of the peace to prevent theft of their belongings. In lawless lands where ideas and money can be stolen without consequence or the opportunity for recourse, it is doubtful that our mega-rich neighbors would have accumulated the wealth and power they now possess. The chance for upward mobility and personal wealth is unique to those places that have strong government infrastructure and (relatively) low corruption. Those wealthy enough to pay this tax (we're talking about 5,500 families in 2009) owe this country for their success, and should be honored to ensure the continued stability of our system through one last payment.

If you don't think that's a good enough reason, then think of the children. I for one would be embarrassed to create children or grandchildren in the mold of Paris Hilton by giving them seemingly endless amounts of money. And I think the hardworking builders of personal fortune would feel the same.

For 2011, the estate tax has returned with a $1,000,000 deduction and rates between 41-55%. I for one am glad to see it back. It's fair, it's good for the country, and it's good for the children.

-Selfish Blogger

Are you rich enough?

If you ever start to feel like you're poor, maybe because you can't afford a bigger apartment or because you have to decline a night out with friends to stay on budget, remember that most of the world has much, much less than you.

I'm in the top 3.1% of the richest people in the world. Where do you fall? Find out here http://www.globalrichlist.com/

-Selfish Blogger

The Life You Can Save... if you care to try

The Life You Can Save by Peter Singer changed my life. And that was by design.

My best friend, the common catalyst for most of my moral-lifestyle-shifts, gave me her copy of The Life You Can Save in December. I read through it quickly, often fighting back tears as Singer carefully lays out a solid case for giving to the world's poorest people. The commonly heard arguments against giving (like aid creates dependency and aid encourages poor people have more babies) are honestly and fairly addressed. Before I was half way through the book, one thing was entirely clear to me: my daily choices are unforgivably selfish.

The opportunity cost of my lifestyle, my spending choices, is a human life. Every dollar I spend in a restaurant, on faster internet, or for new clothes is a dollar spent with heartlessness, because I don't need any of those things. I live in a world where 10 million children die each year from poverty - and I am in a position to help. How can I justify what I spend to maintain my comfortable middle-class lifestyle when I could instead pay for oral rehydration therapy (some salt and sugar dissolved in water) and save one of the 3 million who die of diarrhea each year? What kind of a person am I if I have the ability to save someone's life, but choose to turn away?

This blog is an exploration of a consumer culture that tells us to define personal worth by accumulation of wealth rather than good deeds; institutions and religions that claims to serve the poor but whose actions say otherwise; the giving and spending habits of the mega-rich, celebrities, and politicians; and my own morality.

It is my hope that a thoughtful, public discussion of the issues surrounding poverty and the role of the wealthy (that's us) will encourage me to do more, and encourage others to join me.

-Selfish Blogger