QuakerInfo.com Forum

[kiwihelen]

Hi,

Just been reading Oliver Jame's book "Affluenza"

Despite being a long term member of a meeting, I realise I have a touch of the dreaded virus, being very much driven by the status associated with my job.

I've started looking at the roots of this in my family of origin stuff, but I was wondering if any other Friend has had similar journeys?

In peace

Helen
(Member of Cambridgeshire Area Meeting, British Yearly Meeting)

[Shay]

What is it?

[kiwihelen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza

My particular vulnerability is I feel I need to achieve success in my job, and being successful is highly validating. So it mucks with my work-life balance.

I come from a highly successful family, and my mother was depressed when I was young, which while not an abusive family of origin, I was rewarded for being "good and docile" rather than challenging values and status quo.

I'm working on having to have one of the biggest disagreements of values systems with my Mum I have ever had, and I am 40 and quite scared of this...I know she is an amazing person and will still love me even if we disagree, but I am still scared of her disapproval (and sadness)

[Pulpculture]

Hi Helen

This poem meant something to me when I read it. Some of your comments reminded me of my past.

If you can't be a pine on the top of the hill,
Be a scrub in the valley—but be
The best little scrub by the side of the rill;
Be a bush, if you can't be a tree.

If you can't be a bush, be a bit of the grass,
And some highway happier make;
If you can't be a muskie, then just be a bass—
But the liveliest bass in the lake!

We can't all be captains, we've got to be crew,
There's something/or all of us here.
There's big work to do and there's lesser to do
And the task we must do is the near.

If you can't be a highway, then just be a trail,
If you can't be the sun, be a star;
It isn't by size that you win or you fail-
Be the best of whatever you are!

xx
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[aspie]

I'm sorry, I see that this thread is a year old, but I just joined recently, and just wanted to reply. From what I've seen affluenza, at least in my community, can get a grip on Friends. Just my observation.
_________________
I'm a quirky soul with a strong sense of justice and a good sense of humor.

[kiwihelen]

[CelticNorth]

In these difficult economic times, everyone should have an eye on their financial well being, and ensure that if overly blessed with success and financail gain, make well placed charitable donations be part of their financial plan. I am mindful that Quakers were the founders of both Lyod's and Barclay's Banks in England, and that it was the hard work and financial savy of the Quaker whaling community in Nantucket, and the sale of whale oil, which was one of the main financial engines which funded the American Revolution. The Quaker leaders and community which established Philadelphia were no less mindful of seeking a fair profit for their labors. and there is a long history of Quaker involvement in finance and business. I am not certain one should ever shun we;; deserved and earned success, but one should also ensure that financial charity be part of that success. The list of Quaker business concerns which were part of Englands financial fabric for many years speak to the ability of one to balance financial gain and individual faith commitment to one's faith community.

[kevin roberts]

i'm a lot less interested in responsible charity than i am in food, water, shelter, and heat.

my kids all sleep in one downstairs living room because the upper rooms are unheated. we have only intermittent running water and often no hot water at all. the broken windows are covered in garbage bags to seal out the snow. the kids are fed breakfast and lunch at school because we can't afford that much food.

one of these days i'll pick out a deserving charity to donate to, but i'm not in a real hurry right now.

[punkrainbow]

[Kiahanie]

^^^ That Friend speaks my mind.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[james]

^^^Same here.

Centuries ago the primary source of aid for the poor was the church, and while that was far better than nothing, it was generally just enough to survive, if that. Particularly in an affluent society such as ours, government does and I think should take the primary responsibility for supporting those who can't support themselves, and by that I mean more than the barest means of survival.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[CelticNorth]

I had to revisit this thread after reading "Winner-Take-All Politics" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson. It is not our imagination; there has been a major transfer and shift of wealth in the economy, leaving a dust bowl of broken dreams in a once vibrant middle class. When six members of a single family ( Walmart ) control financial wealth equal to the total wealth held in accumualtion by the bottom 30%, it makes me pause and wonder where, in fact, government has been in regulating the economy with an even hand, or if democratic capitalism will survive and live up to its historic promise of market fairness. We have recently endured one of the most devastating economic downturns in the history of the United States, wherein the Treasury Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were found to be ineffective in monitoring the health of the economy or regulating stability in the markets. The financial pain and anguish that many families are now experiencing will reach into the next generation in ways not yet forseen, and I have a growing sense that it will be through strong family relationships which encourage economic support to one another being be a major factor in economic survival of the next genration. In the community in which I reside, there is a more conscientious attention being made to donate to food banks and provide clothing to shelters and emergency rooms. I have abandoned a big government solution to economic disparity and hardship, seeing only that it has been govenment policy which has created the disparity we currently endure. When we permit the top 1% of the economic elite gain control of nearly 24% of the economic wealth of our country, we have failed in providing a equal playing field for all. It seems the country has tired of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, but within that movement there is much to be gleaned about the ongoing dysfunction of our economy and the intentional disparity it creates. I find myself giving more to charitble causes and assisting family members, realizing that government is not in the postion to give more itslelf. Like the nation of Greece, now facing the reality of its inability to sustain a viable working economy without drastic cut backs, it may be that our govenrment as well need look into that same crystal ball and face reality.

[james]

The primary tool in our society for redressing the inequality you speak of, McGuffey, is more progressive taxation; the primary problem is that it isn't progressive enough. Another alternative is full-blown socialism, but I don't think that's a realistic option at this point in history.

Government doesn't *cause* the inequality; on the contrary, it is an (insufficient) force working toward *lessening* that inequality. The main problem with government in this sphere is not that it does too much redistribution upward, but that it does too little redistribution downward. It is primarily commerce, not government, that redistributes wealth upward, from the working class to the owning class.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[CelticNorth]

Certainly, progressive taxation is a legislative failure when a current Presidential candidate earning $40 million a year pays nearly the same 15% tax rate on income as the rest of us. The "affluenza" I speak of is the often quoted economic policy claim that by keeping the top tax bracket low, jobs are therefore created, forgein investment capital is attracted to the United States, the "economy" henceforth obtians "non-government" funding sources to fuel growth, America becomes more competitive, and everyone benefits from an increase in GNP. Let the rich get richer and their investments "trickle" down into a raised living standard for everyone. What has transpired is a economic super class which is institutionally beyond the reach of government regulation and social norms. Not since the "Gilded Age" have so few accumulated such vast concentrated weath, all the while under the watchful eye of govenernment regulation. The old method of secreting obscene wealth was through private "trusts", and it was Theodore Roosevelts "Trust Busting" efforts which removed the legal protections of congolmerate business holdings and alliances within. Holding the veiw, as many here do, that you "can't take it with you", it then becomes morally incumbent upon individuals to voluntarily divest in socially responsible ways. I think that, like kiwihelen, many individuals are torn about economic status and superiority perceptions in balancing life objectives and family expecations while striving for success and exellence in their respective fields, and at the same time desiring to maintain a sense of Quaker wholeness, unity and purpose within themselves. My main thought is, that with the numerous worth while Quaker charities out there, everyone, no matter what economic or social rank, has the opportunity to be directive in the dispensation of their assets for socially responsible, and Quaker valued, outcomes.

[james]

15 percent is not the same as, but much *lower* than, what most working people pay in taxes, when you include Social Security, property, state, and sales taxes. Second, trusts and anti-trust laws had little to do with hidden income; it had primarily to do with price-fixing and other coordination between a handful of the top companies to avoid competition and keep prices artificially high. Plus, most poor and lower middle class working class people --that is, the vast majority of the population--can't divest because they're not invested. Your solution has nothing to offer most working people.

Most importantly, though, there's a big difference between a policy failing, and a policy not being implemented, or its opposite being implemented. Such is the case with progressive taxation. If our tax rates now were what they were in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, or even 90s, there would be no deficit and income inequality would be far less outrageous than it is now. Overwhelmingly, we are talking about a problem of tax policy here.

(I don't mean to say that donating to worthy causes is a bad idea--of course not. I just mean to say, it's not nearly enough.)
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org