“Always poor is he who works with an indolent hand, but the hand of the diligent brings
wealth” (Proverbs 10:4)
I used to ride the New York City subways daily. Once, some zealous Christian with a magic marker wrote at the Times Square stop: JESUS SAVES. The next day someone else had scrawled underneath: MOSES INVESTS. Both phrases express the Protestant work ethic. Many Christians in America had the foresight to live frugally, and not only Jews but also all thrifty immigrants soon learned how to invest, to live sparsely, and to build up their assets. It’s the American way—or at least it used to be. The early industrialists and tycoons such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Harriman, Forbes and others were examples of the Protestant work ethic at work to make themselves millionaires. They were taught that it was the Christian thing to do, as well as being good for the country. When appointed Secretary of Commerce, one of them, the Chairman of General Motors, Charles Wilson, made the statement: “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” Immigrants were considered functions in their need to produce, just like raw materials and consumers. Until the unions came about, workers were on their own.
But the immigrants quickly learned the value of saving and investing. They still do. After the Germans and Irish who followed the English, the Slavs and now Latinos and Orientals all realize that by consuming less and investing more, they are on the road to realizing the American dream—retiring in luxury, or at least with a secure future.
The present situation is that in order to deal with the immediate crisis of the 1930’s, the Great Depression, our government set aside the Do It Yourself free market economic system and adopted what was a form of socialism, called the New Deal. Ever since, we have come to expect that government will find a way to provide for our needs, at least as a last resort. We assume that somehow we will be cared for from one benefit program or another, an intricate system of entitlements that challenges the free enterprise ideal fundamental to the original standards on which the nation was based.
The present Bush administration is aware that the old money people, the present millionaires who are unable to pass on their wealth to their progeny because of the laws of inheritance, are somewhat successful in eliminating the heavy penalties assessed to the beneficiaries of family wealth. The irony is that the people most likely to benefit if such a measure becomes law are themselves divided on the issue. Those who had done little to earn the great wealth inherited by them—sons and daughters of the magnates—are of course pleased and encouraged by the possibility that they may pass on what they inherited from their parents and grandparents; however, the original founders of what became dynasties, those who came up from poverty themselves via the famous “school of hard knocks,” are not at all certain that passing on vast wealth from one generation to another is the best way to benefit their grandchildren. They feel that those who had not earned their wealth with the sweat of their brows are not likely to appreciate the wealth of their ancestors, nor are they capable of dealing responsibly with it.
In a recent and popular book, The Millionaire Next Door, the author poses the same argument. He discovered that those who become millionaires are happiest without needing to spend and live lavishly. They are content with a simple standard of living. They drive old automobiles, live in modest homes, wear clothes off the rack, and often clip coupons to take advantage of sales. Those who inherit money, on the other hand, have little understanding of what it took for them to live in opulence. They take for granted a life of extravagance, they expect others to sacrifice in order to make their lives comfortable, and they are helpless if they are made to assume the normal challenges that life presents nearly all of us from time to time.