Fear of losing what we shouldn't even have

Ten pounds is a lot o' money. Makes a man feel prudent-like, 
and then goodbye to 'appiness.

In My Fair Lady, Eliza's father Alfred asks Professor Higgins and Colonel Pickering for five pounds "for one good spree". The professor offers him ten, but ten is too much for a spree. "The missus wouldn't have the 'eart to spend ten."

It's played for comedy, but it's also true; there is a level where money stops helping and being a comfort, and starts becoming a burden.

You can look at this from different directions. From the bottom up, studies have shown that the happiness that comes from earning more money tops out somewhere between $60-75,000 annually. Of course cost of living varies from place to place, but that range is essentially where your needs are met, and you can get some wants, but even more so your problems don't grind you down and feel insurmountable. There's a lot of fear and stress that goes with being low-income.


http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2019628,00.html
https://money.com/ideal-income-study/ 

Then, after hitting an income of $95,000 per year, happiness actually starts to decline. Maybe this is where you start feeling more stress about what appearances you need to put on, or that your taxes are going to undeserving people and that no one appreciates how much you do.

From the other direction, wealth creates insecurity. I have seen multiple articles about millionaires in Silicon Valley who feel pressure to keep up with people who have more millions than they do. In Abigail Disney's New Yorker profile, she cited a study the Chronicle of Philanthropy did on inherited wealth. It showed that no matter how much each recipient had received, to feel secure they thought they would need about twice as much.

(So if you had inherited $25 million, you would think having $50 million would be enough, but if you had inherited $50 million, you would believe you needed $100 million.)

I have less sympathy than I could for the nervous rich, but it does appear that it changes the brain, and not in a way that increases happiness or makes the world better. Even those who are considered philanthropists - which should be a good thing - don't end up truly improving and solving their causes (read Anand Giridharadas), not to mention there often being destructive business practices on the way to wealth.

So the Waltons might take federal tax credits, and also pay their employees low enough wages that they require government assistance while destroying existing local businesses, and the Sacklers might allow prescription mills to create a whole new and improved drug scourge, and Jeff Bezos might buy Whole Foods and cut medical benefits, and people don't seem to remember now some of the things that Bill Gates did to make Windows rule.

All of that could be expanded upon (and probably will be in the main blog) but there is limited application. The church has not done anything unethical to acquire its wealth. Tithing is a principle that goes back at least to Abraham, and those who tithe are blessed.

However, at some point it clearly got to be too much. That brings in a hesitancy, and a distrust. In fact, it brings in conservatism. If that word applies in multiple ways, that is not strictly coincidental.

And I am mortified that when we have the ability to do so much good, we are mainly known for our bigotry.

That is shameful.