Money decisions and Morality part III

 

I have to admit I am getting tired of thinking about this topic.  During the week after a post I continually go over the thoughts and concepts I presented.  I try and keep an open mind as to the appropriateness of any statements I have made and whether or not they were accurate or even applicable.  I am always aware of the fact that I could be out in left field at times.  So many thanks to all those who comment on my posts and thanks to friends who shared my links with their communities.  You all have given me a great deal to think about.  I am grateful to all of you.

My frustration with this topic and why I am getting tired of thinking about it has to do with my inability to fully describe what is happening.  I have been writing about how we as individuals make decisions.  My latest posts have been about monetary decisions and what role morals play.  If I cannot be confident in my understanding of current economic circumstances how can I expect myself to make sound decisions about my monetary needs.  Also a number of factors are double edged swords.  I do acknowledge the importance of consumerism in our economy.  Consumerism keeps money circulating within our economy.  Money that moves is more helpful to an economy than money stuff in your mattress.  However money in a savings account is generally invested and helps the economy through the money multiplier.  If this wikipedia article is too boring let George explain it.  So for an economy is it better to spend your money or save your money?  As I have said before I am not a trained economist so your guess is as good as mine.  Also who am I to say that buying things is inherently immoral?  I still adhere to what I said in last weeks post about saving for retirement.  That was, if you are not saving you are expecting someone else to support your retirement needs.  I definitely am not the one who will do that.  I also acknowledge that I am not analyzing the bigger picture.  I have been looking at the cohort that have household incomes above a threshold value and their monetary decisions.  Looking into the future, the harmful effects of a large percentage of our population living at or below the threshold can hardly be imagined.

I generally see a common thread in a lot of these current economic (and societal) issues.  It does fall back on those of use that are fortunate enough to live in households that have discretionary income.  It is again, about the decisions we make.  Would you pay $2.00 for a 12 ounce cup of coffee or $3.00 for a 12 ounce cup from a different coffee shop?  Everything being equal most of us would select the $2.00 cup.  What if I told you that the second coffee shop with the $3.00 cup provided a livable wage and health care to their employees?  Would that change your decision?  If you were 100% sure that the extra dollar was benefiting the employees would you pay the extra dollar?  How can one justify paying a lower cost for something if that difference is burdening the hands that served it to you.  What if you find a coffee shop that charges $1.50 and pays its workers even less.  Would you get your caffeine fix there?  How far would you go?  Or better asked at what point does your purchase become exploitive?  It is a difficult thing to ponder.  This is a restaurant in California, would you pay the 4% surcharge?

Again it comes back to us.  We who live above the threshold and how we spend our money.  As I have post previously:

"Buddhism teaches that money is neither inherently good nor bad, but it can take on good or bad qualities depending on how we use it. Using money to feed a destructive addiction or to hurt another person is bad, while using money to support a worthy cause is good."

In a restaurant we do not set the prices but we do decide on what to tip.  This idea of deciding what to purchase is not a new idea.  Products have been boycotted for a number of reasons.  However I am looking at this from a household scale.  Previously Unions, activists and other third parties told us what to boycott.  I am advocating for us to recognize that goods and services do cost money to deliver.  We do have to pay our fair share of what those costs are.  If we do not then someone else is bearing an unfair burden on our behalf.