How do we use wealth? There are three ways we use our wealth:

  1. Consume to satisfy personal needs, wants, and desires. Reasonable personal consumption is not limited to basic subsistence living. God did not create us as cattle needing only food, water, and shelter. We are creative image-bearers of God. We were meant for stewardship of resources. As we have discussed already, human flourishing is about more than subsistence.
  2. Invest in productive enterprises (which might include placing funds on deposit at a lending institution, purchasing debt instruments, purchasing equity shares in businesses, starting your own business, or by owning appreciating assets.) Investment is critical for at least two major reasons. First, at a personal level, it helps to provide for us in our economic downtimes and limits the chances that we will need to draw from other's resources to support us. Second, at a societal level, it builds the amount of societal wealth for investment in business enterprises, fueling the creation of jobs and economic growth.
  3. Distribute resources to others. We need to distribute a portion of our resources, if for no other reason than to restrain our own covetousness and delusions of self-reliance. I don't think that tithing is taught in the New Testament, but I do think that a tithe (as a minimum) is one contemporary way to live out Sabbath in our lives. It frees us from relying on our toil to trust God. Giving is a way we celebrate and remember God's provision for us.

Our challenge is to find the balance between these three uses of wealth. To think about this, let's imagine a woman named Sally Worker at age 22. We know that Sally can earn $200,000 a year by age 42 if she works to her maximum economic potential. We fast forward twenty years. Here are three possible scenarios (among countless possibilities) of how Sally's life unfolds.

1) Sally lives well beyond her means. She is making $200,000 but her debts are greater than her assets. She has saved nothing and given nothing over her lifetime. She has no wealth.

2) Sally is making $200,000 and living within her means. Through saving 10% of what she earns and investing it, she has amassed a portfolio of $1,500,000. She has given nothing away.

3) Sally opts to live a relatively simple sustainable lifestyle. Because of this, she has made career decisions that have resulted in her making $25,000 a year. She has lived at just above the poverty level, saving 10% and giving all she can afford to help the poor. She has an investment portfolio of $75,000.

Now extrapolate each of these out as the average behavior for society (for ease, I'll ignore the tax implications.)

First scenario – While there would be plenty of consumption going on, production would collapse. With no one saving or investing there would be no capital for businesses to draw on for production. The poor would receive nothing. Actually, the economy would have collapsed long before Sally’s 42nd birthday.

Second scenario – There would be significant consumption stimulating economic demand and substantial capital would be created through saving and investment. But anyone who falls into hard times is out of luck. There would be few, if any, civic and volunteer organizations. It would be a cold heartless “survival of the fittest” world. It would be a dark place in which to live.

Third scenario – There would be much less business demand because of earning only 1/8 of what could have been otherwise earned. Capital to operate businesses would be magnitudes less ($75,000 versus $1.5 million) but, of course, so would demand. The poor would end up with a little more resources to consume but overall consumption (which means revenue for business) would be magnitudes lower. Job creation and earnings would be far less.

How about a fourth scenario?:

4) Sally chooses not to orient her life to get her maximum earning potential. Other values affect her decisions. She is now making $150,000 a year. She is saving 15% and now has a portfolio worth $1,500,000. She has given away 15% of what she makes, helping out others in need and creating opportunities for those who have not yet made it into the abundance she now lives. She is living on $105,000 a year (remember, no taxes) net her savings and distributions. (Imagine if she invested or gave more.)

What is the impact of the fourth scenario relative to the other three?

  • Consumption in #4 will create a more robust demand for goods and services than #3 through Sally's consumption, but less so than with #1 or #2.
  • Sally's savings in #4 far exceed #3 and #1, and she invests $2,250 more annually than in #2.
  • Meanwhile, scenario #4 generates more than any of the other three to be given to the poor, even though possibly a higher percentage of income is distributed in scenario #3.

Choosing to make far less than one's potential earnings (like #3) can come from several valid reasons. Whether someone chooses to make a modest income, or a modest income is the best one can earn, does not make them a lesser contributor to society (there are other contributions to society besides economic ones.) My point is that from a purely economic perspective, it is not true that earning and consuming less necessarily creates greater economic benefit for the poor.

The problem is that we too often look at the problem only through the lens of consumption and distribution. We make up for someone's need over there by doing with less over here. My abundance is reciprocal to someone else's need. Production and capital (our investments) are missing from the equation, yet that is the key ingredient to growing a prosperous economic ecosystem. Destroying capital through massive redistribution schemes and failing to fund recipients' capital formation is a disaster for everyone. We need:

  1. An appropriate level of consumption that creates human flourishing.
  2. An appropriate level of investment that creates and preserves capital for economic enterprise.
  3. An appropriate level of willful distribution that frees from covetousness and brings others into abundance.

The understanding of where wealth comes from (previous post) and how the uses of wealth interrelate (this post) is something that we have learned in just the last few centuries. What does this mean as we look back to the ancient biblical context?

[Index]


Comments

10 responses to “Living Simply in Abundance (4)”

  1. Great post, Michael.
    Freedom to choose in general, and free enterprise in particular, really is what helps the poor. All my life, (50 years), I have been told about how we need to help the poor in China, India, and Africa, with our charity. Most of my life, my charity has only provided immediate relief, but finally as China and India have developed property rights and free enterprise, the poor in those countries are being helped and are able to care for themselves without as much charity. The solution to poverty really is, working, earning, spending, investing, and giving.
    Perhaps living in California has blurred my perspective a little, but my impression of most people nowadays is that everyone is expected to maximize their earning potential. I realized many years ago that in order to maximize my earning potential, I would need to compromise my integrity. Therefore, I decided to maximize my integrity, (which sometimes seems impossible) and let my earnings follow. We really can’t serve two masters.

  2. I’m not opposed to relief by any means. The desperately poor need the basics of life in order to function at higher levels. I just concerned that we use our aid with and eye toward developing prosperous and just economies.
    The maddening the thing about so many social justice advocates is that they focus almost exclusively on relief while they demonize trade and seem to do all in their power (intentionally or not) to block the emergence of economic prosperity.
    Relief? Yes. But with aim of economic prosperity.
    “Therefore, I decided to maximize my integrity…”
    IMO, the most valuable thing any of us possess. A wise investment decision. 🙂

  3. Brad Cooper Avatar
    Brad Cooper

    Michael,
    Once again….BINGO! 🙂
    (I’ll chime in on this tonight…have to play a quick game of double solitaire with my wife and then get ready for work….I’ll think about it at work…..)

  4. Brad Cooper Avatar
    Brad Cooper

    Michael,
    I didn’t really have a lot of time to think about this tonight after all….
    But I did think a little about how SURVIVOR is in fact an economic model that reveals the ease with which people will ditch integrity and doing the right thing in order to win a million dollars. I actually find the human dynamics of the show quite intriguing. The way the show is designed brings these issues to the forefront.
    When people do lie and stab people in the back, they quickly defend their actions by saying its a game or that they really didn’t have any choice. Of course, they do have a choice. And even though it is a game, they have a choice how they will play the game.
    And of course, when it’s down to the end (the final two before the jury…and the reunion show), it becomes very clear that the people who were lied to and stabbed in the back view it no differently just because it is a game. Furthermore, I’ve seen that in real life that people will do the same kinds of things for far less than a million dollars.
    Well, thanks for another great post, Michael. The four scenarios are a very helpful way to think through how important it is to integrate all of these different elements into our personal finances.

  5. Good stuff.
    How much of our wealth we should consume is a question we really need to grapple with. In my view, Christians in the west have wasted an tremendous amount of wealth on frivilous or trivial consumption over the last fifty years. When historians look back in fifty years time, I suspect that our time will be seen as a time of enormous waste and incredible wasted opportunities.
    I am amazed that Christians in America have conferences to discuss the future transfer of wealth from the world to the church. Can they not see that God has already done it. The wealth held by Christians in the West is absolutely enormous by historical standards. Given what we have done with what we already have, I would be surprised if God would trust us with a whole lot more.

  6. Ron
    Thanks. It is precisely the integration I’m going for and I agree with you about when historians look back in 50 years.
    Brad
    Thanks. I think the Survivor thing is a lot like the Trolley and Hospital dilemma post I wrote about a few days ago. I think the show is set up to create artificial choices to force destructive behavior. If I’m asked to do something unethical at work, I refuse, and get fired for it, I don’t die (i.e., get voted off the island). I suffer a setback and get another job. 🙂

  7. Brad Cooper Avatar
    Brad Cooper

    Hey Michael,
    I’ve got to disagree with you about the artificial nature of Survivor and more than that what happens in real life.
    First, no one on Survivor is forced to exhibit destructive behavior. In fact, some actually do quite well without exhibiting such behavior. And although the situations are artificial in the sense that they are designed by the show’s producers, they are very parallel to real life situations.
    More than that, I have seen these same kinds of destructive behaviors time and time again. Rather than getting fired, these people more often than not stay at the same place of employment for many years. They also frequently make more money and even get promotions.
    I have many actual persons in mind….And in fact, I cannot think of anyone who was fired for these kinds of reasons. Rarely are they even confronted–even if the bosses actually know. Their behavior is simply tolerated. People are usually fired–voted off the island–due to laziness or causing too many accidents or too much scrap or just not showing up. They’re almost never fired for lack of integrity or backstabbing or causing trouble for someone else.
    Quite frankly, the thing that fascinates me most about the show is the way people’s behavior on the show parallel’s situations I have encountered in real life.

  8. I agree that elements of these shows highlight certain realities. However, how many people have the chance to compete zero-sum for one million dollars (or even a fraction of that) where they no longer have to live with people they competed with or transact future business. Most (not all)people who do end up in a postition of responsibility to have opportunities at this kind of money do it by exhibting integrity and finding win-win solutions for everyone inovlved. The arbitrary constraints and lack of future ongoing consequences of decisions is what I find least realistic.
    Still, it is often entertaining television. 🙂

  9. I can orient my life to not meet my maximum earning potential and still make 150K? Sign me up. 🙂
    Tell Isaac that the ones around here call us “slaves”, not “staff”. Then again, you probably won’t want to pass that along. But you could tell him that he is quite erudite for a feline.

  10. LOL
    Glad you got kitty’s letter. Isaac call us staff because he is a benevolent ruler. We know our real places.

Leave a Reply to RonMckCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading