I noticed today in class that the issue of excessive wealth hit some nerves on both the social justice and economist side of the thought spectrum. Some people were offended by the notion that someone who works just as hard as an executive (or some other high earner) could be living in squalor while that single executive could have so much money that he doesn't know what to do with it. Others seemed offended by the thought that people could hold that executive in contempt for earning so much money. I just want to add my two cents. I've always wondered what compels someone who already has enough money to make it so that he'll never be want for anything ever again, to make more money. For example, David Beckham went to L.A. for more money, but how is that going to improve his life? Isn't the camaraderie of his own nation worth more to him personally than some article about the 12 wealthiest athletes or something? Yet, I meet so many people who see it as completely natural for someone to make a decision like that. All I can say is that there is something fundamentally flawed with the decisions people with lots of money make. I don't know why it is. I could guess that since they've been successfully making decisions to increase their wealth all their life, that's the only kind of decision they know how to make, but that would be a gross generalization, and is rather simplistic.
The answer seems to go back to the Seven Deadly Sins, in this case Greed. This is even more of a generalization than the idea that the absurdly rich don't know how to do anything else with their lives, but it's pretty accurate; once you get past a certain point of wealth ( admittedly a subjective one ), every extra million or billion is arbitrary for your own needs. In the meantime, there are billions of people who live in abominable conditions, and would benefit greatly from even a tiny fraction of those excess assets. Anyone with a remedial knowledge of current events knows this, and the upper class should know it better than most ( having such access to higher education ); however, few act on it, beyond utilizing charitable organizations as a vanity project.
From that perspective, the drive to become richer and richer is not just misguided, but even corrupt ( especially for those whose riches are gained directly by exploiting others ). Which makes the conclusion to Slow River even more questionable; after so much experience being part of the underclass, first as Spanner's partner-in-crime and then as a menial worker at a plant with dubious safety regulations, shouldn't Lore be a little less hasty to accept the return of her inheritance? Admittedly, we don't find out what she does with her restored legacy because the book ends there, but hopefully the cycle of decadence and decay that defined her family will be broken...
I must say that I am not a big fan of the ever-popular "calling out the rich for wanting more money and not being good little boys and girls and feeding Africa" trend. It is easy to cite examples such as professional athletes and talk about how they don't need all their wealth. It is also easy to come to the conclusion that the intentions behind this pursuit of wealth is that of sin and evil, which none of us "commoners" could ever relate to. I think that this is a wrong assumption to make, and to assume that we ourselves would be immune to this temptation is also ignorant.
The thought that the extra millions don't mean much to the rich is flawed for several reasons. First of all, the rich person may have concerns for future generations or relatives, or in the case of athletes, one injury and they can completely lose their source of income. Most importantly, as was discussed in class, the money is a status symbol, basically serving as a direct measure of power and influence. It is basic human nature to pursue more power, and to never be satisfied with it. The second most powerful person in the world is going to try to figure out a way to become first. Its not about the basic value of power or money that you have, its about how much you have relative to the people around you. Having more money gives more influence in society, higher positions in social hierarchies, etc. The extra million or billion is not arbitrary by any means.
That is not to say however that it would not be more useful in the hands of someone truly in need of cash. Making the argument that the rich are sinful because they don't give away all their cash to the poor is a utilitarian argument, which certainly has its merits, but by that same logic, what about the parents of the average american household. Should they give away their $40,000 salary to starving children in Africa? It certainly would have a net positive effect on happiness. Also would a lack of such action mean that they are greedy and sinful? Us looking at the millionaires and lamenting about their relative wealth is just like a child in a third world country looking at the middle class American spending money of TVs and magazine subscriptions and wondering how anyone could be so selfish. Operating under the belief that we are inherently above such actions as the endless pursuit of wealth renders us incapable of examining the situation.
On a concluding note, the fact that it is so natural to pursue wealth makes those exceptional instances where people do give to charity all the more special. I would even argue that it does not matter if it is a vanity project or not. All people who give to charity do it because they feel good, for some this feeling is just the knowledge that they did a kind deed, for others it is the prestige gained of handing a giant check to an organization. If donations can only be seen as morally legitimate when the donors happiness comes from the happiness in the recipients, then a rich athlete who can't derive happiness in this way has no moral way of getting rid of his money, and so should just hold on to it. Simultaneously criticizing the rich for how they give away money, and for not giving away enough is paradoxical.