I was on a blog the other day and was talking about the difference between NEED and WANT, and the NEEDy, and “WANTy”. It got me to really think about the difference, and the fact that most people don’t know which is which. I thought that I would focus a little on this as I have strongly felt that I wanted to provide my family with everything they needed, and hoped to provide some, or maybe even much of what they want. But what I’ve seen is that many people confuse their own wants for needs. Still others, have confused the needs of society for wants.
Let’s begin with definitions, shall we?
need – a condition marked by the lack of something requisite
want — to feel inclined; wish; like
As you can see the two definitions are similar, but not at all synonyms. Need is required, and want is elective. Children are notorious for confusing the two, but I find more and more (and maybe it’s just because I’m getting that much older… for an elf) that we see this in adults.
When I was a little elf, like many people, I believed we should have utopia – a world where everyone could have everything that they wanted. As I grew older, my parents, who were not wealthy people told me that I could have everything that I needed, but if I wanted things, the only way I could guarantee that I had any chance at getting these things, was to work for them. As got my first jobs (as a kid simple things like mowing lawns, etc, and later working for companies), I realized the value of money, that I to prioritize which things I wanted most, and that I couldn’t have all, or even very many of the things I wanted. At that point I began to set goals for myself, realizing that unless you were ridiculously wealthy, you needed to put a lot of things in place in order to fulfill a large number of wants, while still being able to provide for your needs.
Realizing that money was the critical component to purchasing my wants, I had to figure out how to make lots of it. I realized that hard work was a major piece of the puzzle, but so was education. This education (for me) was to be college, and was something I would have to pay for myself if I wanted it. In order to do this, I worked often 50 hours while in full-time classes, sacrificing some of my social life, and sleep to make this work. Once I graduated, I combined my proof of my brain (a diploma), with my real brains, and hard work to carve out a living… meager at first, but after some good planning, and determination, very good. As a result of this, I have been able to plan the beginnings of a great retirement, live in a nice town, with a nice house, cars, and have many toys and luxuries to show for it.
Now that I’ve patted myself on my little elf back, I want to turn around, get down to brass tacks, and get back to where my point was going: The difference between want and need. There are the truly needy out there – people with disabilities, children, elderly with diminished capacity, people who have been stricken by disaster, and similar examples. These people deserve our help as a society. Through charity, some organizations, and personal means, I feel that I make a difference by donating my time to help, as well as pay taxes to help fund programs for the needy. But what really kills me is the system-soakers… you know, the people that don’t have needs but want to get things without having to work as hard as the next elf to get them. Equally as much, I’m annoyed by the people who think that we should be giving to people to improve their standard of living, not because they CAN’T provide these things, but because for whatever reason, haven’t.
But you may be wondering about specifics since I’ve spoken about philosophy and generalities. What I’m talking about are people who receive government assistance, funded by taxpayers, that don’t NEED it. These are able-bodied people that choose to sit back and receive a check, and will go to extreme lengths to trick the system to keep those checks coming. These are people who cry poor, but are only this way because they can’t figure out how to reduce spending and save. These are people who refused to sacrifice and train themselves through apprenticeship, college or other means to get themselves a position that would pay them better money. These are people who are not willing to comprehend that they may just have to settle with not having some things that they WANT, like I have had to do. You see, this really wouldn’t bother me normally, because as long as people do not threaten me, or burden me, I believe they can be free to do what they want. The problem is that they expect people like me to pay for them! They expect someone who has had to live without, made sacrifices to get to income levels that where I can have some of the things that I want, that spends hours per week voluntarily helping events, charities, and organizations that help the needy, to then also pays more in tax percentage than any other income bracket to support their needs.
Here’s what I NEED. I NEED an explanation of why I NEED to give to people who don’t work as hard as I have, so they can have many of the same luxuries I enjoy. I NEED an explanation of why I had to make sacrifices, but these WANTy people haven’t yet they can get tax breaks, and payout. I NEED to understand why some WANT to raise my taxes even higher.
Here’s what the WANTy NEED. They NEED to look me in the eye, and explain why I NEED to work even harder so I can give them even more. After this, they either need to get off their lazy @$$es and do something for themselves, or learn to live without. If they don’t, they NEED a good kick in the posterior.
Maybe I’m being a little over the top, but I believe the American dream is belief in the freedom that allows all citizens to pursue their goals in life through hard work. But my dream has been regularly shattered by those who seek to sap my income as a result of this hard work, to pay for something that does me no good. When people (and elves) have their dreams interrupted they tend to get irate.
So here I am.
Filed under: Life, Opinion, Politics, Taxes Tagged: | American, Charity, Class, Dream, Earning, Economy, Goals, Irresponsible, Middle, Planning, Politics, Poor, Rich, Socialism, Society, Welfare
Many of those soldiers did not decide to fight for themselves, they were drafted. Sometimes our government has to “force” people to do the right thing. That takes nothing away from those soldiers, they were called to duty and they went and were willing to give their lives to better their country – based on decisions made by their government.
I’m not saying that “spreading the wealth” as you seem to perceive it is the “right thing,” but I think you’ve set up a straw man argument.
Here’s another way to frame the argument from the other side:
Most of those conscripted and volunteer soldiers came from the middle and lower classes. It could be argued that it’s time for the top to step up and stop acting like babies, after all, nobody is asking you to give your life for your country. The government has waged war on poverty in the United States – will you answer to the call of duty or dodge the draft and move to Mexico?
I’m not saying that this is the “right” way to frame the argument, just that there are millions of way of framing it to make one group look like the bad guys (either the Wanty or the Greedy). You should read some Lakoff, it’ll help you better understand why you believe what you believe and then you’ll be able to make more intelligent decisions. You may indeed end up making the same decision that you have, I’m not saying that it’s unintelligent, but an intelligent person should be able to see different angles.
Ian,
Those soldiers have fought for their children — you’re right — as well as the right to decide for themselves, and not the opporessive government. They did not, and our founding fathers did not, fight in order to allow our government (givernment) the right to take our money, and determine who should be more worthy of then recieving it.
I share a similar story. My grandparents scrimped so that my parents wouldn’t have to scrimp as much, they scrimped so that I wouldn’t have to scrimp as much. Each of the previous generations “suffered” a little so that they could leave the next a little better off. As President Obama said to Joe the Plumber: “everybody who is behind you [...] they’ve got a chance at success too.”
That’s exactly what Americans have been doing throughout history. Our founding fathers fought for our freedom so that their children would have it. Our brave soldiers fought in WWI and WWII so that their children would live in a better world. Undoubtedly the soldiers fighting in Iraq are fighting for the safety of their children and their children’s children.
Nobody really does it “on their own,” you have those that have gone before you to thank.
And GOPMom:
“Of course the young voters are mesmerized by him – they’re (mostly) too young to understand real struggle, real oppression. WHich is why they won’t turn out like their supposed to. Obama lost this election two weeks ago when he tried to laugh away Joe the Plumber’s question.”
Your dogma blinds you to reality. Regardless of who one wanted to win, a rational person would have shown much more insight than you. If you were that wrong about the elections (and your blog is another example) then why should I trust your insight into anything else? If you were a television or radio pundit you’d be laughed out of town. Even Michel Graham and Jay Severin admitted that Obama had a 9 in 10 chance to win. Either you simply don’t know what’s going on or you thought that if you repeated yourself enough it would eventually become true.
I can’t say I disagree with you GOPMOM. My father didn’t get cable until I was in college (in the 90s) because he just felt it was an uneeded expense, and we didn’t have the money to waste. He worked very hard at a job that often worked him 60+ hours, and often got a second job if he wanted any “luxuries”. But he scrimped, and saved, and now has a large house, a nice car, has extra land for sale, and rental property, in addition to a great job, one he’s had for well over 30 years. We were poor by most definitions, but we made due with what we had, until we were plenty ahead, and then were allowed to have more.
I believe it has made me stronger as a person, as I know that if everything fell apart tomorrow, and I had to compete for work or success, I’d be more capable of pulling myself out of nothing, and back into comfort than most people.
Actually I wasn’t being sarcastic. When I was a kid, not that long ago, poor people didn’t have tv’s – or they had really old b&w tv’s with rabbit ears, really old cars, if at all, hand me down clothes, not very nice homes/apts, not much to eat and no mountains of toys imported from China, etc… (Hey, that sounds a lot like my early childhood.) Remarkably, none of those people are poor now. They’re all self-sufficient, self-reliant and successful. It’s amazing what a little poverty will do to inspire people.
Now, “poor” people have tv’s, dvd’s, cell phones, cars, clothes,etc… I’m sorry, that is not poor. Poor is living in a shack, no shoes, no food – not seen in America much these days. Poor is no longer a state of being in America, it is a state of mind. And that is what Obama is trying to capitalize on – this perception of “poorness” and oppression. Of course the young voters are mesmerized by him – they’re (mostly) too young to understand real struggle, real oppression. WHich is why they won’t turn out like their supposed to. Obama lost this election two weeks ago when he tried to laugh away Joe the Plumber’s question. Enough Americans know what it is like to work hard to get ahead – they’ve done it – and they see no reason to unnecessarily “pave the road” for those coming up behind. It’s an insult to all of us who did it on our own and an insult to those who Obama thinks need that hand-out. His arrogance is mind numbing.
I agree that she was being sarcastic, but so was I. People just love to throw the word Communism around these days. You are indeed correct, it would more closely resemble Totalitarianism. Though school children in the former USSR wore school uniforms – it just seems to be “the thing to do” in Communist societies. I was also commenting on the basic mentally inherent in her post: if it doesn’t exist (or they don’t know it exist), they won’t want it – which is very similar to the anti-materialist goal of Communism.
Ian,
That’s totalitarianism, it has no economical connotation. I think she was being sarcastic. Although, let me tell you, when I see people enjoying leisurely pleasures while on the public dime, I too wish I could take them away.
Actually GOPMom, if you do that (confiscate televisions) and then make all of our school children wear uniforms we’ll be well on our way to Communism.
@ GOPMOM,
Thanks for calling this an essay, you’re too kind. Not that great quality, but it gets my point across.
Case in point: During college, while working for a property management company, I was managing some rental units. I had been to the same unit a few times for some legitimate maintenance calls. The resident and I had become relatively friendly on a speaking basis. I had asked her what she did for work, and she almost proudly told me she didn’t work. Not really understanding what she meant, she indicated that she had 3 kids, and that she couldn’t work because she had to take care of them. She then saw I was clueless, and let me know she was on welfare. I looked around her apartment at the nice TV, couch, clothes, etc, and had to leave. I was so angry that I was forced to work full-time while in school in order to pay my bills, rent, and some of tuition, yet some of my meager income had to be carved out for people like this woman, for whom I was servicing. So while I sacrificed, my time and sleep, had to eat pasta and Ramen Noodles, she was sitting back catching the day-time soaps and all on someone else’s dime. Yes, she had 3 children, but they all went to school all day. She couldn’t even work part-time?! It was that day I went from being a ‘love-the-world, share-the-wealth ignorant youth, to an angry do-it-for-yourself-because-no-one-else-is-gonna-do-it-for-you elf. The more I’ve seen, the less compassion I have.
So LOUDElf, do you think maybe if we disconnect the cable at all the low income and Section 8 housing, then all the slackers won’t see all the commercials of all the stuff we tax payers refuse to buy for them? Maybe we should confiscate all the televisions. If they can’t see it, maybe they won’t want it.
Great essay. Unfortunately too many will never get it. SOme will always stick up for socialism – because they are too fearful to live without government back-up.
I agree, but at least the doers are still payed based on the value of the services they provide. If we hit true socialism, you, your secretary, and David Ortiz will all be making the same amount of money.
You see, speaking strictly philosophically, socialism basically says that the service you provide is no more valuable than the service provided by any other individual in society. That means the arbitrary “value” that a capitalist society attributes to the work that you do will no longer exist. In a socialistic society everybody is a “doer.” It requires a complete paradigm shift, a new a vocabulary, and way of thinking that I don’t believe our country (or any country) could ever achieve. Which is why it’s doomed to failure.
It also requires that nobody “wants”, since it would be virtually impossible to have more than anybody else. In a way socialism is a way to rid society of the “wanty.” However, we all know that people will always “want” more than they have – which is another reason socialism will never work.
Not to make it sound like I’m sticking up for socialism, but one of the main reasons it will never work is because of human weakness and temptation. Just look at the Nuns and Monks, who take vows of “poverty” – they are only allowed what is necessary. They live in microcosmic socialist societies that actually work because they diligently, will the help of their faith, resist the temptation to want more than they need. Most people are simply not willing to live that way.
No, I did not use socialism, or communism because our country is not there… yet. I do find that many politicians that cater to the wanty, do preach ideas very similar to that of socialism, or at the very least Marxist philosphies.
These very philosphies take people like me, the doers of society, and tell me that I am punished for accomplishing difficult goals. They tell people that are the demanders of society, that they should keep it up, and that people like me will provide for them, as long as they keep voting in these same types of people. It’s a scary and vicious cycle.
It doesn’t address it directly, but does address it abstractly; you just have to make the connections. Of course there’s no chapter on the needy and the wanty, but it does give you “fresh” insight into how the needy become the wanty. But it takes a rather close reading and I’ll admit, it’s probably not worth the time since it basically corroborates what you already know.
Aside from that, I’m glad you didn’t use words like “socialism” and “communism” that are being incorrectly thrown around these days.
Malthus’ essay really doesn’t address my point at all, that people most WANTy people think they need and deserve, when they really just hope for things.
You should really read Malthus’s essay. Here’s a snippet from Chapter Five:
“Fortunately for England, a spirit of independence still remains among the peasantry. The poor laws are strongly calculated to eradicate this spirit. They have succeeded in part, but had they succeeded as completely as might have been expected their pernicious tendency would not have been so long concealed.
Hard as it may appear in individual instances, dependent poverty ought to be held disgraceful. Such a stimulus seems to be absolutely necessary to promote the happiness of the great mass of mankind, and every general attempt to weaken this stimulus, however benevolent its apparent intention, will always defeat its own purpose.”
You can read the rest of it here: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.5.html