31st Oct, 2007

How Do You Define Rich?

mansion.jpgThe 2006 U.S. poverty thresholds are as follows:

For a household of 1 - $10,294
For a household of 2 - $13,167
For a household of 3 - $16,227
For a household of 4 - $21,134
For a household of 5 - $25,441

The U.S. Median annual household income (regardless of size) was $48,201. Over 19% of all households earned over $100,000 annually. About 13% were below poverty level.

Does any of this define richness? And I’m not trying to be tricky here; I am talking economically. Tara told me yesterday that she heard that you can define a person as being rich if they own a book. book-with-glasses.jpgPonder that. Anyone who owns a book is rich. They have the extra money to spend on a book. They have leisure time to spend reading a book. I know that when we visited homes in the Philippines people didn’t have books and were excited to receive bibles and reading glasses, something they knew nothing about.

At the Global Rich List, a site I’ve linked before, you can enter in your annual income and see how rich you are in the world. Go to the link and enter in your annual income. It’s quite fun, interesting, and a little humbling. An annual income of only $25,000 will put you in the top 10% internationally. We just spent the summer on Mindanao in the Philippines. The average household income in the Philippines is less than $4000 annually - about $300 per month. In talking with workers in stores there, some of them only made the equivalent of 4 dollars a day. In India the average annual income drops to $735 and in Uzbekistan it is around $600. hummer.jpg

Anyway, I like this notion of richness simply being the ability to own a book. Do you have any other ideas or ways to define “rich”? What do you think of the federal poverty levels? Does looking at the bigger picture help you realize how much we take for granted and that having more and more finances doesn’t satisfy?

Responses

It is amazing how much of our culture is about the worship of money. very good post.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t get very pious when it comes to the poverty issue. The thing that’s distressing isn’t that Americans have so many resources, it’s that most countries are so corrupt and poorly-managed that people don’t have the opportunities to participate in the growing global economy and have the access to the technology and information that they need.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for Christians helping the poor and aiding people in distress. I love everything about what you were doing when you were in the Philippines, and I’m trying to contribute in various ways to combating poverty in my local community. I’m just saying that instead of getting all hung up on the wealth gap, we should be advocating principled, fair, free market economics and compassionate capatalism as the best means of giving third-world countries the opportunity rise out of poverty and participate in the global economy. That’s not a theory — it’s proven, and it works.

Jared, I hear what you are saying but I don’t see anywhere in Jesus’ teachings or anywhere else in the bible that following Him means “advocating principled, fair, free market economics and compassionate capitalism.” It’s just not there. And it’s not that capitalism didnt exist then. Jesus knew economics just fine. Jesus said give. Go. Feed the hungry. God said that the fast he honors is the one that feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, sets free the oppressed. We are called to something more than the world’s economics and principles. We are called to the Kingdom of God. So, with that in mind, I do think it is important to consider the justice of the rich-poor gap.

I don’t mean to disagree with you in sentiment or even in deed. I’m just trying to say that I feel that a large part of the overall “helping the poor” in impoverished regions of the world must be comprised of more than just giving them some bread. It must be giving them a means to produce something and make a return on it. Economics is a complicated subject, to be sure, but in the current age that we live in, there are economics that work and economics that don’t work. I’m saying, let’s find solutions for the bad economics, so that the poor have the opportunity to rise above their current level of poverty. To somebody who’s unemployed, giving them a good job might be the most compassionate thing one can do.

Obviously, this is all secondary to the principal task of spreading the Gospel. I’m not implying that wealth will save anybody. :) Far from it!

Leave a response

Your response:

Comment preview:

Categories

Bad Behavior has blocked 123 access attempts in the last 7 days.