When attempting to define wealth in Thursday’s class, I found it interesting the difficulty we had in cementing a definition. When the question “are you wealthy” was broached, everyone immediately was silent, and I could tell this wasn’t a question many were comfortable answering. The unique thing about wealth, especially in America, is that everyone strives for wealth, yet when asked about it, no one wishes to admit to having extreme wealth. When we got around to attempting to determine a concrete definition for the term, there were many discrepancies.
While wealth certainly refers to monetary gains, it also incorporates resources and abilities. I thought the point made about the choices you have was important. Those with enough money are able to choose and decide to do something that others without the privilege of money would not be able to do. For example, those with a large amount of debt out of college go for the higher-paying jobs, while those without the burden of debt are able to choose a post-college job that fulfills their dreams or is convenient. This capacity to actually make this decision is an important aspect of wealth.
Another view of wealth is that it is not necessarily always based off of liquid assets (cash). Someone may be seen as wealthy by most everyone, but have the majority of their wealth tied up in investments, stocks, property, or businesses.
Professor Jackson brought up the idea of the transference of wealth. Is wealth viewed the same across cultures and countries or does the definition change? I think that after a certain point (the Bill Gates or Oprah level) wealth is wealth, no matter where you are or who you are with. On the other hand, there are people considered wealthy in their country, but would be living below the poverty line in other places—like DC for example.
The bottom line is that wealth, as well as poverty, are two very subjective terms. When we attempt to define the terms, we run into discrepancies in opinion. I don’t think we will ever really come up with a definitive characterization for wealth, but it seems that most people seem to recognize wealth when they see it. This recognition of wealth only becomes an issue when individuals make assumptions—whether true or not—about those they stereotype based on their wealth or lack thereof.
Danya, after reading your post I decided to look up the dictionary version of wealth and how a dictionary version would try and attempt to narrow it’s meaning down. I was shocked to find the definition Webster’s described wealth as “an abundance of valuable material possessions or resources”. The word valuable especially stood out to me in that definition because it reminded me of how the term”value” similar to what you said about how wealth and poverty can be interpreted differently. It seems as though society today often associates value only with monetary expressions (prices, costs, returns on investment) but real value is found in the things that make life worthwhile: genuine wealth free from financial ties.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I really liked your comment at the end where you said that most people seem to recognize wealth when they see it. Your definition definitely applies not just to monetary or personal wealth, but more importantly a persons own viewpoint of how they see wealth, value, or poverty in their culture.