Rich man, poor man

SINCE people settled down into farming communities there have been rich people and there have been poor people. Is this just fate, or are people responsible for their own financial state?

Bill Gates once said: "It's not your fault if you were born poor, but it’s your fault if you die poor." Is this really true?

Many factors determine your financial status, even in modern democratic societies. These include your parents’ financial position and educational status, where you were born, your own level of intelligence and initiative, the number of opportunities there are for you (if any), the political and financial circumstances in your country of birth, schooling opportunities, availability of mentors, and of course individual determination.

When it comes to countries with such a stark wealth gap such as South Africa, it is not unusual for the rich and the poor to slate each other. So, is there a moral aspect to financial status, and are the poor just lazy, and the rich all thieves?

There have been five main ways of looking at this issue over the last two thousand years. Here’s a short summary of these five basic beliefs:

Your station in life, whether high or low, is God’s will, and it is unchangeable

A medieval peasant generally accepted his/her state in life and did not expect ever to become the lord of the manor. You were born into a social and financial position, and you were likely to end your days in the same way.  It was simply said to be God’s will, and for centuries this was seldom questioned.

The caste system in India worked pretty much along the same lines, down to your profession/marriage prospects/social status/financial position all being determined at birth.

It is difficult for us to imagine simply accepting a position in life with no prospect of betterment, but in a way it was probably easier to be resigned to one’s lot, and not be constantly anxious about improving one’s status.

People with talent and initiative, however, were hampered for life by rigid social class structures. There was nowhere for the upwardly mobile to go. It also meant that less talented people who happened to be born into high social status enjoyed undeserved privileges, purely because of who and not because of what they were.

This way of thinking also discourages the poor from trying to get a fairer share of society’s wealth (whether by business savvy, economic revolutions, promulgation of workers’ rights, the overthrowing of rigid class systems) and it absolves the rich from sharing their wealth and privileges more equitably.

The rich are the most useful people in society

Here’s how the theory goes: the rich have a taste for luxury and in indulging this, they create work for those lower down on the economic scale. This, the theory goes, is what ultimately creates wealth. Without the rich, the poor would starve. This theory became popular in the 18th century, ironically just before the French Revolution and the rise of the Industrial Age in Britain.

While there is no doubt that the wealthy provide jobs, a firm belief in this theory hampers efforts towards creating a more egalitarian society and helping the poor improve their situation.

One more thing about the wealthy: whether they earned their money themselves or inherited it, it is an art to hang onto money and to make it grow. Many people who do manage to get money simply squander it, and quickly rejoin the ranks of the poor.

The poor are the most valuable and honourable members of society

Here’s how the theory goes: Who is it who has done all the real work? Who has built cities brick by brick, planted all the harvests, scrubbed all the floors, paved all the roads and dug all the ditches? When it comes to the real work that keeps society going, it’s the poor who have done it all – with minimal reward or recognition.

The rich could not survive without the work of the poor. Christian beliefs which honour the poor and promise riches in the afterlife often absolved governments of taking responsibility for their citizens’ welfare.

This way of thinking downplayed money as a status symbol, putting a higher value on moral worth than riches and achievements.

But it also failed to acknowledge the contribution to society, even if only financial, of the rich, and the fact that the fate of rich and poor is actually intertwined in many ways.

The rich are a bunch of thieves who stole everything from the poor

Here’s how the theory goes: the rich do not deserve their money, as everything they have was stolen from the poor (mostly in the form of land and labour).

“All property is theft,” asserted Pierre Proudhon in the 19th century, and later on Karl Marx.

And on the other side, people say the rich work hard, they see opportunities, they take chances, they work smart and they manage their money well.

One of the basic tenets of the capitalist system is that labour and raw materials can produce something that can be sold for more than it cost to make. This can create extraordinary wealth for some individuals. Conspicuous consumption by the wealthy is bound to cause bitterness among the poor, especially if their labour helped create that wealth.

The poor are lazy and responsible for their own fate

Here’s how the theory goes: in a society where opportunities and resources are there for the taking, those who are still poor must be lacking in initiative or industriousness.

While this might certainly be true in some cases among poor people (you find lazy people in all walks of life), it discounts the fact that very few societies offer opportunities that are really equal. True, some people just don’t take what comes their way, but it must be remembered that democracy does not mean financial equality. It is extremely difficult to break out of a downward financial spiral.

People who believe the poor are poor because they are stupid or lazy are also disinclined to give them a helping hand, such as charity. It takes enormous strength of character to rise above one’s circumstances if you come from a poor background, and not everyone possesses that. There’s a reason why people like Oprah Winfrey stand out.

* Susan Erasmus is a freelance writer. Opinions expressed are her own.