Rich Getting Richer?

[dgs49]

Hypothetical questions:

If a physician has a high income, but has to work 70 hours a week to maintain it and cannot afford to retire, then is she "affluent"? Is she more or less affluent than an average working stiff making 1/4 as much, who only works 40 hours, but has gobs more free, discretionary time?

Is a homeless person "affluent," if essentially all of his time (other than periodic trips to the soup kitchen) is "free" and unencumbered?

Am I "affluent" if I am working even though I COULD retire if I chose to?

[rubato]

Hypothetical questions:

If a physician has a high income, but has to work 70 hours a week to maintain it and cannot afford to retire, then is she "affluent"? Is she more or less affluent than an average working stiff making 1/4 as much, who only works 40 hours, but has gobs more free, discretionary time?

Is a homeless person "affluent," if essentially all of his time (other than periodic trips to the soup kitchen) is "free" and unencumbered?

Am I "affluent" if I am working even though I COULD retire if I chose to?

The physicians I know of who work 70 hours a week make > $400,000 / yr and work because that is what gives them pleasure.

My wife has cut her hours to 4 days a week because we don't need more money and time is more valuable.

I take several weeks a year of unpaid leave for the same reason.

In the narrow sense we 'could' retire now on our assets so one might say it is true that we are working a few more years due to voluntary servitude. The financial difference between now and then is one driven partly by avarice; to be honest. And the fact that I'm very good at what I do and rather enjoy that fact.

Affluence is necessarily a fluid concept and involves the relationship between one's "needs" and what one has. Stunted miserable people don't know that 'needs' are personally definable to quite a great degree; depending on ones understanding of freedom and autonomy.

You can be a slave for $200,000 a year or you can be free for $50,000 /yr. A lot depends on your own integrity.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

The definitions of affluent presented all result in more free time than the non-affluent.

My statement is obviously true. If it is not obvious to you then the fault is yours.


yrs,
rubato

Thanks mate! You agree with me now. I stated a long time ago that free time was a result rather than a defining characteristic of affluence.

Now that we're on the same team we'll show the rest of these bastards what's what!
Over to you great mate!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hmm, I think the original use of "defining" was a somewhat self-defeating form of short-hand which represented a larger idea. It was open to scorn indeed.

But I'm having trouble seeing the difference between a "result" and a "characteristic". There certainly are language uses of "characteristic" which would not be confused with a result. OTOH in many instances it is the result(s) that are what we call "characteristic" of the causative agent.

For example, Dwight Clark scored many goals (result). The goals (results) were certainly characteristic of both the way he played the game and the purpose for which his services were purchased.

There must be an identity of result and characteristic - otherwise one could not say that "having oddles of cash" (result) is a characteristic of affluence. Or "a large house". Or indeed anything. If you cannot point to a concrete result, then there is no characteristic that can be identified.

Even if you say "well generosity is a characteristic of Jim X", you can only say that if you see results that can be characterised as "generous".

So again, granted that "defining" was a tad slipshod of rubato in the first instance, the degree of wrongness is almost infinitisimal.

(That's a small animal isn't it?)

Meade

[Sean]

You leave my mate Rooby alone. Meade!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Curses, foiled again and I spelled "Clarke" incorrectly!

[oldr_n_wsr]

The physicians I know of who work 70 hours a week make > $400,000 / yr and work because that is what gives them pleasure.

So they are affluent but have no free time.

My wife has cut her hours to 4 days a week because we don't need more money and time is more valuable.

I take several weeks a year of unpaid leave for the same reason.

So you are affluent and have some free time.

You can be a slave for $200,000 a year or you can be free for $50,000 /yr. A lot depends on your own integrity.

So one is affluent but has no free time and one is not affluent but chooses to have free time rather than a larger paycheck. That I agree with and by that definition affluence does not equal free time. Life choices do.

Stunted miserable people don't know that 'needs' are personally definable to quite a great degree; depending on ones understanding of freedom and autonomy.

"Basic" needs are not personally defineable. Food and shelter are instinctive needs. One can choose not to eat and not to be sheltered just as they can choose to die (aka kill themselves). After basic needs, people then might be able to choose other things they determine to be "needs". I need a TV, I need cable, I need a car, I need a nice lawn. Are they really needs, or just wants.

[dgs49]

Can a person be "poor" if s/he has a home with a mortgage, several televisions, a cell phone, a microwave oven, a home computer with paid internet access, a car, and is obese?

You betcha!

At least according to the U.S. Census Bureau.