A man given over to the love of money...

Luther said "God often gives riches to those gross asses to whom He gives nothing else." I was reminded of this reading the news that Warren Buffet is bullish on America because our women are finally getting the benefits of our unique economic system that specializes in "unleash(ing) human potential."

Since the beginning of time mothers have been the very center of the unleashing of human potential, or so I thought? Women have been free to be generalists who introduced their children to the universe as their husbands slaved in mind-numbing specialties introducing money into Warren Buffet's coffers, but now Old Moneybags wants the mothers, too? Who does he think will raise the children once all the bright women are in his offices and all the strong women are in the Armed Forces?

All the stupid weak women?

In this editorial in Fortune, Buffet announces:

America has forged (her past) success while utilizing, in large part, only half of the country's talent. For most of our history, women -- whatever their abilities -- have been relegated to the sidelines. Only in recent years have we begun to correct that problem.

Note that "we." Noblesse oblige.

What of Christians who sacrifice half their household income... so our wives may give themselves to that notorious relegation on the sidelines formerly known as "motherhood?"

Resistance among the powerful is natural when change clashes with their self-interest. Business, politics, and, yes, religions provide many examples of such defensive behavior. After all, who wants to double the number of competitors for top positions?

With motherhood being a bottom position, right Warren?

He closes with this:

No manager operates his or her plants at 80% efficiency when steps could be taken that would increase output. And no CEO wants male employees to be underutilized when improved training or working conditions would boost productivity. So take it one step further: If obvious benefits flow from helping the male component of the workforce achieve its potential, why in the world wouldn't you want to include its counterpart?

Fellow males, get onboard. The closer that America comes to fully employing the talents of all its citizens, the greater its output of goods and services will be. We've seen what can be accomplished when we use 50% of our human capacity. If you visualize what 100% can do, you'll join me as an unbridled optimist about America's future.

Earth to Warren: please tell me you've seen a baby? Even once? A mother? A nursing mother? A home? Please tell me you don't think a housewife's kitchen is demeaning and a chef's kitchen is grand? Please tell me you know what Pampers are and how to throw them away so the kitchen doesn't stink? Please tell me you know how many months a baby is carried in her mother's womb and how many years before that baby can live on her own? Please tell me where toilet paper comes from and what it's made of? Please tell me where we're going to get workers to change Baby Boomers' Depends?

This foolish man thought he was writing in support of woman when what he was really doing was preening himself publicly in such a way that would absolutely guarantee him the enduring enmity of every mother in our land—and every father, son, and daughter who loves her.

Ah yes, stop and consider how much richer these United States will be when we no longer waste women on motherhood and are free to gainfully employ them in the "workforce" as drones serving that Buffoon's bottom line.

But hey, Warren is the man with the plan. He knows when the first generation of women who abandon motherhood get old and need their Depends changed, and there are no sons or daughters to love and care for them because they've been off serving as Warren's drones, we can import drones from those countries where women are still "relegated," on "the sidelines," and "underutilized."

Where from joy women are still mothers.

Whenever a woman is in labor she has pain, because her hour has come; but when she gives birth to the child, she no longer remembers the anguish because of the joy that a child has been born into the world. - John 16:21

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

Thank you for faithfully coming to our defense in this matter once again. 

Is Capitalism inherently stable or must it eventually and necessarily crush the family?

Greed will crush the family, not capitalism. The point of WB's words is that life is meaningless unless it brings money. If you can't show me the money you've made, you haven't made anything. 

In other words, since mothers can only produce educated and civilized men and women, they aren't producing anything. They need to get with the program and sit behind a desk or a cash register or a steering wheel or teach other people's children or help sick strangers in exchange for large sums of money.  

I'm very thankful that you continue to point out these things.

More and more I am convinced that the reason the powerful want mothers in employed work is that "doubling the number of competitors" for jobs markedly reduces labor costs. For non-college graduates, and often for college graduates as well, we have crafted an economy in which a family requires two or more employed members to provide food and shelter. They're not done yet, folks. Kids can go back into the mines! 

I don't understand why anyone cares about Warren Buffett. If I could make an ad hominem attack here, it would be about his character and behavior (including with a woman who is not his wife). The only thing he has going for him is that he has a way with money.

My comment above refers more to the period 1977 (when his wife introduced him to the other woman) to 2004 (when his wife died). He married the other woman in 2006.

Why?  Because he's rich, and tends to agree with the mood of the age, Todd.  Not that you didn't know that.  And that's the danger; that because he knows how to invest--I've read notably in businesses affected by the estate tax--we think he knows about other things, and even think he's a disinterested observer in the estate tax.

And having disowned a granddaughter (his son Peter's adopted daughter Nicole) for disagreeing with him....it's a good thing for him that he's got billions to pay for people to take care of him, as I'm guessing at least one grandchild won't be easily persuaded.

The most important men in town would come to fawn on me!
They would ask me to advise them,
Like a Solomon the Wise.
"If you please, Reb Tevye..."
"Pardon me, Reb Tevye..."
Posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!

And it won't make one bit of difference if i answer right or wrong.
When you're rich, they think you really know!

Dan,

one of my friends and I were discussing this awhile ago.  Many families are now supported by two parents working barely above minimum wage jobs to make ends meet.  It's basically "two for the price of one". 

No wonder liberals are getting increasingly vocal about publicly funded daycare.  That way mom can go to work for minimum wage and taxpayers get to fund childcare for the children that costs more than she makes in a month.  Who is this a good deal for?  Think about it....

Blessings,

Nancy

Okay, I'll bite. How do you throw used Pampers away so the kitchen doesn't stink?

David,

Why do you think Tim is so particular about his garbage disposals?

David; my family's trick is to throw them out somewhere besides the kitchen!  :^)  (and then empty that garbage can often....it sure helps!)

And well said, Reb Andrew!  A far better response to Denver Todd's question than mine.

Buffet is likely a buffoon, but note that several of the complaints seem to imply some sort of bare minimum that is required. It does not, in fact, require two incomes for an actual bare minimum. It might require two incomes for what is to us a bare minimum, but that's because we're as greedy as Buffet. Until we learn that greed is a human problem, rather than a rich one, we will continue to covet, grumble and become buying fodder for the Buffets of this world. How is "It's not fair to encourage women to work outside the home because it drives down my wages" different in principle from "I encourage women to work outside the home because it drives down the wages of my employees"? Both sides are choosing which they prefer on the basis of their own bottom lines. 

There are parts of the country where incomes are sufficiently depressed that one would struggle to get by, particularly if one welcomes children, on one income.  I don't think those areas are very well represented in the Reformed world though.

David,

One again we treat incomes and expenses as if they are simply found in nature, as if a man (or in Buffet's case, a man and a woman) is somehow owed a "living wage" where he lives, and has the right to determine what he means by "living." If a man can't support his family where he lives I hardly think the solution is to grumble about two income families. He may have to redefine "support" or "work" or he may have to move.

If a man can't support his family where he lives I hardly think the solution is to grumble about two income families. He may have to redefine "support" or "work" or he may have to move.

Perhaps and the notion comes easily to a rootless generation but leaving the ground where your parents, grandparents and great-grandparents are buried and await the resurrection is not a small thing. 

Classic Andrew, you have me laughing out loud!

No small thing indeed. That said, the man who won't support his family is worse than an infidel (I Timothy 5:8)

No small thing indeed. That said, the man who won't support his family is worse than an infidel

Amen.  But a society that pushes women into the labor force to drive down wages and imports foreign peasants to do the same can make that man's task much harder than it would be otherwise.

>>can make that man's task much harder

Yes, and the reason I brought up the financial sacrifices of Christian men and their wives who commit themselves to childbearing and to mothers caring for children was in response to Warren Buffet's nasty accusation:

Resistance among the powerful is natural when change clashes with their self-interest. Business, politics, and, yes, religions provide many examples of such defensive behavior. After all, who wants to double the number of competitors for top positions?

We are not powerful and we do not define our "self-interest" monetarily. We are not a "religion" intent on defending ourselves or our God. He needs no defense. And concerning His People, He is our Protector and He neither slumbers nor sleeps.

We hold almost no "top positions," so we don't mind them being doubled—don't mind it at all. Not many among us are wise or rich or influential, but God has chosen the foolish people of this world, the people who are not in order to confound the billionaires.

As Warren understands "self-interest," our decisions and commitments are almost devoid of it. Which is to say we love motherhood and fruitfulness and olive shoots and passing on the baton to His godly seed...

Love,

How is "It's not fair to encourage women to work outside the home because it drives down my wages" different in principle from "I encourage women to work outside the home because it drives down the wages of my employees"?

Because, as you correctly observe, men are under God's command to provide for their families in a way that women are not.

With everything on motherhood stated so far, I agree.

But I think the anger at Buffett is way off.  Buffett's not making a comment on motherhood; he's making a comment on women in the workforce.  There's no reason whatsoever to assume that praising the latter is somehow denigrating the former.

Otherwise I'd be able to suggest that Mr. Bayly is somehow denigrating monasticism, simply because he focuses on motherhood and not celibacy.  He hasn't mentioned the latter simply because it's not pertinent to his topic.  Buffett isn't any different.

 One of my favorite parts of the novel Bonfire of the Vanities is where the protagonist explains why he can't possibly, possibly get by on less than a million dollars a year in Manhattan. 

     It's crucial to remember that you can choose where to live and work. Although cities with the highest cost of living tend to have the highest wages, usually the wages don't rise in proportion to cost of living. People who live in Manhattan or Hawaii are paying for it. There's a good table at   http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=155581 on elite law jobs that shows that adjusted for cost-of-living, a young lawyer in Indianapolis makes more than 50% more than one in Manhattan, and  a Houston lawyer make double, even though the pay in New York is highest. Living in an expensive city is, like living in a big house, a luxury, not something extravagant necessarily, but not something to complain about either. 

Add new comment