Givers and Takers (and earthquake makers) of the Economy
March 21, 2009 by Julia King · Leave a Comment
A couple of months ago I attended a memorial service for a woman who headed up her congregation’s Care Committee, meaning that while she was alive (and she was incredibly alive) she specialized in swooping in to care for others when they were in need. She baked casseroles for growing families, made sandwiches for the grieving, transported the sick to hospitals. In story after story, her friends described a woman with a nearly insatiable desire to give.
We all know people like this woman, the ones who stack the chairs and sweep the floors while others (me) stand around chatting, the ones who wash the last coffee cups and wipe down the counters… without the slightest expectation of reward. When these people are thanked, they deflect the thanks like Wonder Woman deflects bullets with her magic bracelets. It ends up anywhere but on them.
A.I.G. executives (and others in the news) have me thinking about that Care Committee friend. What is it that makes some people devote their lives to humble giving and others to seeking praise, money, and material reward?
Never mind the numbers — so big they might as well be starring in a movie alongside giant, mutant ladybugs (start with 800,000,000,000, then subtract 170,000,000,000; then sneak out 165,000,000…etc.). Sorry, but some of us (lots of us) are just never going to get the numbers. But if the economy runs in large part on “confidence,” the social psychology of our system matters just as much as all those loony zeros do. It matters that the economy doesn’t make sense in our guts.
We’re Americans. We believe in work and in excellence; we admire both innate ability and hard-won skill; we value persistence and optimism. Yes, we are willing to accept that those who achieve great things are entitled to live with a little more than those of us who never will. But we’re not fools. And we are not mean-spirited (well, maybe when we haven’t had enough sleep). The genial, middle-aged bagger in my grocery store may not be capable of complex problem-solving, but that fact alone should not put him at risk for poverty. In our system it does.
The problem with our fantastic free market is that it’s a little too much like a teenager, chasing after the latest trend and responding to desire over genuine need. For instance, it provides Americans with a dizzying array of affordable sexy shoes (fun, fun, FUN), while a large percentage of us can’t afford to visit a doctor (not so fun). Like a high-schooler, it gives preference to those who are naturally charismatic, or aggressive enough to demand serious money, and pretty much ignores people who are hopelessly incapable — or who deal in modest kindnesses. Sadly, we’ve got a system that even on its best days is about as considerate as a prom queen (hint: not everyone gets invited to her fabulous party).
A lot of people have figured this out, the lopsided truth about our system. But not everyone, like the very smart writers at The Washington Post. In one visit to the keyboard, the editors criticized a fire fighters’ union for wanting COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment) pay, and in another they defended A.I.G. bonuses. Damn those greedy fire fighters, that’s what I always say. But the A.I.G. guys, well… they were promised the money, you know. They have bills too, you know. They might get mad and leave their jobs and what would we do THEN, you know?
(Give back HALF?? Did A.I.G.’s Edward Liddy really say that? Because that’s just funny.)
Despite what’s being said by right-wing men living in the mountains with stockpiles of ammo, there’s a lot of space between America’s current (confusing-to-the-people) brand of capitalism and that big bogeyman socialism. But it seems clearer all the time that the best way to guard against forces of serious Marxism is to fight against the forces of serious greed. (Capitalism devotees could learn a thing or two from hospital president Paul Levy, who inspired internal cooperation rather than competition when faced with a budget squeeze.)
Most of the folks at the top of the economic food chain are never going to head up a church Care Committee, but if they know what’s good for themselves (and the country) they are going to learn to live with less.
