Wealth and Under Earning

Some jobs don’t have pay negotiation in them. You’re in a pay band and you can’t say – ‘I’m worth more’. You have to be at a certain level and in a certain kind of firm to be able to get extra benefits and pay rises. There is also the issue of equality – if I get more money and extra perks – what about my colleagues on my pay grade? Aren’t they worth more too? How will they feel when they find out that I’ve got something that they haven’t? And what of those in unethical employment such as sweatshops, who will lose their jobs if they query the pay but are fearful of how they will support themselves – and others – without it?

Earning less makes you prioritise, and find out what you really care about. It makes you appreciate. There is a pleasure in looking forward to a treat which you cannot yet have. How can life be fulfilling if you get anything you want immediately, and do not know the concept of deferred gratification? Having less makes you choose what is important to you.

I’m not sure that earning caps or the 1960s super tax that the Beatles sang of are the answer. But it does seems to me that some have too much and do not share it. Perhaps it is the sharing that is the important part. If the government taxes you, then you do not choose how much you give away or for what. But less tax means that richer people can decide how they give their money for the benefit of others. Perhaps the rule should be that higher earners chose higher tax or demonstrate that your wealth is going to the benefit of others in another way. Perhaps an individual could invest in better transport or subsidise housing. I admire those in the arts who set up companies so that others may be discovered and nurtured, like June Forsyte in Galsworthy’s Forsyte saga with her artists’ gallery.

I often hear objectors to something expensive speak of how hospitals could have benefited. Why is it that hospitals are the first thing that comes to their mind? As someone who doesn’t use or support the conventional health system they are not the first use of money of my lips. I resent that assumption that only starving children and hospitals are valued uses of money, and that buildings and arts are not. Yet there are basic needs and right which many in this world do not have – and I have the suspicion that the wealth is there to pay for all the needs that exist but it isn’t being used in this way.

I hear what I think are contradictory messages from some abundance teachers. They say that our world could be sorted if we chose to live differently, and have actually named poverty and hunger as something that we have the resources to change. But on the other hand they say: believe you can earn what you are worth, think rich, think bigger… This is what keeps others in debt, lack, and for some, in absolutely dire conditions. Perhaps focussing on those right at the bottom and assisting them finding their financial feet in a holistic and sustainable way – which in some cases will be large parts of a country – is what is needed most.

And for those assistors to drop their fee – they may believe they’re worth it – but aren’t those who need their help. They have enough – those seeking financial advice do not. To say to someone is debt or who cannot meet basic needs – you’ll need to pay for my help sounds ironic of not immoral.