Middle Class Guilt, Ethical Living and Spending Habits

I have always been pretty frugal, though let me qualify this statement.  On a relative scale, my life is extravagant.  I have always had good cars, nice houses, wonderful vacations and most of the possessions that I needed or even wanted.  I eat out fairly frequently at some very nice restaurants and drink good wines and cocktails. I sent my daughters to an International private school and then to expensive colleges.  Compared to most of the earth’s residents I live in luxury.

However, despite all of this I would still classify myself as relatively frugal.  By this I mean that I spend much less than other people of a similar income and wealth level.  I rarely stay at luxury hotels, I don’t buy high end cars, I look for bargains on clothes, furniture, and other goods. I don’t fly first or business class unless I am upgraded.  Basically, I fret over spending money.

Part of this is due to a frugal nature that I believe I inherited from my father.  I am also a risk averse person in financial matters.  This may be caused by the health problems I have always had and which for many years caused me to worry about possibly losing my ability to generate income.

But there is another component to my frugality – the guilt I feel in indulging myself while so many on this earth are struggling to survive.  I wrestle with this guilt partly because of the pangs of my own conscience, and partly because of my wife Karen’s very strong inclinations toward social justice and simple living.  She challenges me on a daily basis on this issue and I find it difficult to argue effectively against her principles. 

Karen has always battled for social justice and if she were not married to me, she would probably be living a much simpler lifestyle.  I have corrupted her somewhat, or perhaps it is more accurate to say she has acquiesced in our higher standard of living.  But if it were not for her persistent challenges there is no doubt that I would be spending much more money.

Choosing a simple (or simpler) lifestyle could potentially be desirable on two levels:  (1) It is possible that simpler living is a healthier and more satisfying way to live, and (2) it may be that living simply is something we can do to make the world a more equitable and more sustainable place.

The first idea, that a simple lifestyle may simply be a better way to live, is a concept that we have all heard many times.  It drove the counter-culture movement of the 60’s and early 70’s, it has been a basic tenet of many of the world’s religions, and it continues to be a topic of contemplation for just about anyone who takes the time to examine life seriously.

The difficult question is what does living simply really mean?  Does it mean driving a Subaru instead of a Mercedes?  Or living in a 2500 sq. ft. house instead of a 4000 sq. ft. one?  Does it mean eating out 1 time a week instead of several times?  These are absurd comparisons, but 'simple' is relative.  

The way most of us who even pretend to care about this topic deal with it is to limit our materialism and try not to have the pursuit of material goods and luxury dominate our thoughts and actions.  Christians have developed impressive logical gymnastics to interpret Jesus’s admonitions about wealth and materialism as warnings about ‘obsession’.  As long as they can convince themselves that they are not ‘obsessed’ with wealth and that they have their ‘eyes on the prize’, then they can accumulate vast holdings and feel perfectly justified and at peace.

And, of course there are lots of people who have no illusions about living simply.  They indulge their every whim and desire and never give the danger of excess or the possible salutary benefits of a less material life a second thought.

I have also seen the other extreme – people whose simple lifestyle is a badge of self-righteousness.  It becomes a chip on their shoulder and a source of resentment for them. They are so obsessed with living simply that they cannot enjoy life.

In the end, we must individually decide what the best lifestyle is for us in terms of how it affects us mentally, spiritually and physically.  And this is in great part determined by our financial means.  A simple lifestyle for a millionaire is likely quite different from that of a blue-collar worker. 

The second possible reason for living simply and curtailing one’s consumption is if one believes that doing so would benefit humankind.  There are two related but somewhat independent lines of reasoning here.  The first says that we have reached a point in human development where we will have to limit our use of resources or face increasingly unpleasant consequences for the planet and its inhabitants.  Such habits as recycling, avoiding the use of plastics, using less carbon-based energy, and creating less waste are the types of behavior that one would choose to support this concept. Additionally, one can argue that limiting a family to two children would make sense in order to avoid over-population.

But there is also the question of how lifestyle impacts the problems of global poverty and inequality.  Consumption is the basis of economic growth, and there are many that would argue that we should consume and acquire at the upper level of our means to ensure continued expansion of the global economy, which in turn creates jobs and lifts people out of poverty into the middle class.  

It is a basic tenet of capitalism that consumption is a good thing and necessary to promote general well-being, i.e. that the engine of capitalism needs the fuel of consumption to work efficiently.  This is basically the ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ argument, sometimes characterized as trickle-down economics.

But there is a counter argument that the long-term health of global society is dependent on a more equitable distribution of wealth and that this will never be achieved if people strive to accumulate in an unlimited manner for their own private use.  Moreover, the worship of wealth and the cult of materialism create an unhealthy disharmony in society that creates a cycle of social upheaval.  The argument here is that a consciousness of moderation and sharing, if embraced by all, would ultimately move our society toward less income disparity and a higher level of community.

Also, if consumption is the necessary fuel for the economic engine, wouldn’t it be just as effective, and much more socially beneficial, for this consumption to be distributed more evenly so that the wealthy don’t consume quite as much, and the less wealthy consume more?  This is not easily done, but the northern European economies seem to have come close to achieving this type of balance.

Like so many other questions about how to live, there is no simple answer.  I do believe that we have a social obligation to carefully consider the impact of our life choices on the world around us.  But it is also clear that the complex nature of our economy, political biases and philosophical inclinations plays a large role in our decisions. The global warming crisis and other ecological issues may in the end dictate much of our future behavior.  That may be a good thing, if we can adapt quickly enough to avoid massive injury and misery in the process.