Saturday, November 6, 2010

Housing, Parking Garages, and the Selfishness of Bill Gates

The move to a new home I announced in June never happened. It fell through. Don't ask! And I've been searching ever since (my current landlord is about to sell the place I'm currently renting). I've seen forty places, but can't seem to find anything with any charm and which fits my fairly modest needs. I made another offer last week, but the owner responded by pulling the place off the market. At this point I'm seriously thinking about giving away all my possessions and wandering naked through the woods. Smear warpaint on my forehead and frighten the bejesus out of everybody.

During all the years I was flat broke, or nearly so, I always figured if I ever had a little money, I could easily grab some awesome pad and live happily ever after. But no. Having a little more money to budget for housing doesn't make the process the slightest bit easier. It just makes the same nightmares more expensive.

In fact, that framework of sliding nightmares characterizes perhaps 90% of the supposed advantages to having money. All it's really good for, assuming you're reasonably healthy and well-fed, is that you get to use parking garages (I giggle gleefully each time I pull into one...which is actually fairly seldom...which, hmm, means it wouldn't have killed me to use them even back in the day!).

If this makes any sense to you - that there's little game-changing in going from "reasonably comfortable" to "having extra", but that
going from "impoverished" to "mildly comfortable" is huge - then the only rational thing to do is try to help the latter with your former.

This article makes a really strong point that's hard to argue against. And if you agree with it, you'd also have to concede the writer's counterintuitive argument that Bill Gates is actually one spectacularly greedy SOB.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would contend that this article suggests that Bill Gates should perhaps give away a good deal more of his money, but I'm not sure I agree he's an SOB. I also *think* that he's stated that he plans to give away all his money before he dies, so that Da Vinci book will become another hefty donation.

Jim Leff said...

Good stuff (though why anonymous?).

I used the term "selfish SOB" just because it conflicted with his philanthropic/humanitarian reputation - appropriate because that conflict is the gist of this article's counterintuitive argument. So, no, I don't really think he's an SOB.

Yet, based on this article, we may have reason to say he's extremely selfish, hording billions and billions (he's given away $28 billion, but still holds over $50 billion) while people are starving. (Please, all, don't settle for my thumbnail version; read the article, which develops the argument elegantly and persuasively!)

And he's actually only pledged to give away half. And for you or I to give away half our savings would be a dramatic gesture. But at his scale, it's much less of one. It is obscene to hold onto billions while kids are starving. That's literally more money than you could conceivably ever use, and then some (and some more!). While there's obviously a slippery slope, he's in the stratosphere above this particular slope.

Anonymous said...

I read the article before my first comment. And I'm a big fan of Peter Singer. And yeah, I assumed your SOB comment was a little tongue-in-cheek and/or meant to stir some debate.

Look, I experience plenty of guilt buying things I don't really need instead of giving more money away. But Bill Gates has given away more cash than I will ever be able to give away (unless my life changes radically very soon (I can hope)). Hence, Bill Gates has done more good in the world than I have or will. So while I agree that Mr. Singer makes a good argument, and sure, I think Bill Gates should probably give away several more of his billions, I was mostly just taking your bait on the SOB comment. And maybe in some twisted way identifying with Bill and trying to make myself feel less guilty. Is this logical? Not in the least.

And I'm guessing you're well aware of the fact that researchers have long known that money makes a huge difference in one's life up to a point, after which it doesn't make much difference (as you observe), but since it's relevant: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/the-odd-relationship-between-money-and-happiness/

I'm anonymous because I can't be bothered to sign in with Google. I don't trust them. And now I seem to have an air of mystery to protect.

Jim Leff said...

------------
But Bill Gates has given away more cash than I will ever be able to give away. Hence, Bill Gates has done more good in the world than I have or will.
------------

Sorry, but that's fallacious. Say you were worth $100, total, and used $20 to buy food for a starving kid. And say Donald Trump was to give away $200 (which, who knows, may actually be his total!). It's true Trump's done literally more good, but that doesn't make HIM good.

Mere quantity isn't germaine. The real question is how close to our pain point we each shave it, and Bill Gates, holding onto over $50B, is as far from his pain point as just about any human being in history. THAT, to me, is what's relevant (and I'd imagine even he would agree with that).

I say this as someone who's intensely grateful for the good done the world by the Gates Foundation, btw.

------------
And I'm guessing you're well aware of the fact that researchers have long known that money makes a huge difference in one's life up to a point, after which it doesn't make much difference.
------------

Yeah, but I don't need to study the research. I've been all over the map myself. Like I said in my main entry, above, having extra money mostly just raises the cost of the same old petty annoyances and impediments. Nobody lives smoothly. No one has ever lived smoothly. Smoothness is a fantasy held by self-styled have-nots about what life would be like if they HAD!

------------
Look, I experience plenty of guilt buying things I don't really need instead of giving more money away.
------------

You and everyone else! One problem is the way you've phrased it. I've sort of reconceived it all for myself. See this if you have a sec: )

Jim Leff said...

BTW, this is relevant. Per the entry at: http://jimleff.blogspot.com/2009/09/selfishness-and-generosity.html


It's easy to spot selfish people. They're the ones who worry about how they're always giving too much.

Similarly, generous people are the ones who worry about how they're never giving enough.

Selfish people think of themselves as overly generous. Generous people think of themselves as overly selfish.

Blog Archive