Arthur Brooks, the author of “Who Really Cares” has studied America’s giving habits extensively. And what he’s discovered is surprising…or is it?
ARE LIBERALS HYPOCRITES OR JUST CONSISTENT?
“When you look at the data, it turns out conservatives give about 30 percent more [to charities]. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”
And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood as well. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government and, therefore, their own responsibility or role in meeting the needs of society.
“You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away,” Brooks says. And people who disagree with the statement, “The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can’t take care of themselves,” are 27 percent more likely to give to charity. In other words, if you think it’s the government’s job to help people in need, you probably don’t help people in need. Is that hypocrisy or just consistency?
HOW THE RICH STAY RICH
Brooks also reports that households (in America) with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations. That’s quite a large percentage, so are the rich (as defined by Brooked) more generous than the rest of the population?
Brooks first breaks America into three classes: rich, middle class, and working poor. “The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor,” says Brooks. “The middle class give the least.” But the working poor give the largest percentage of their incomes to those in need, a more sizeable chunk than the rich – 30 percent more.
Brooks wonders if this is because the working poor have needed charity in the past or know someone who does or believe they’ll need it sometime in the future. To bend Brooks’ research a little here, could it be that a lack of wealth creates empathy for those in need? Or, in other words, comfort contributes to a calloused attitude toward the uncomfortable?
GOOD NEWS ABOUT RELIGION
Lastly, “religious people” are much more likely to give to charities of all kinds, and when they give, they give more money – four times as much.
“…the truth is that they’re giving to more than their churches,” Brooks says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.”
So, my questions, for now, is this: Are the giving conservatives conservatives because they’re religious or are they religious because they are conservative? Are the working poor the working poor because they’re religious or are they religious because they’re poor? How much is belief driving giving really? More than social class or political philosophy? How about you? How do your faith, politics and finances determine your giving habits?
Interesting research. I’m afraid I am not familiar with the writer, but I am both encouraged and challenged by the facts.
Thanks for the great info.
Since I have not read this book, I am left with a few questions.
1) What are demographics used for this book?
2) How did the author define and religious?
3) What are the income levels that define rich, middle class, and the working poor?
I believe that my finances play a small part in my giving, but are not the defining thing in my giving. I think the defining thing in my giving is that I am a follower of Christ and what I have truly does not belong to me. I will admit that at times I am very selfish and do not give as much as I should. I do believe that this selfishness has been decreasing over time though.
Since giving seems to be linked to trusting the person asking for the money, I wonder if conservatives are more trusting then liberals and I wonder if religious people are more trusting then non religious people.
Thomas
I wish I could say what Thomas just did.
Unfortunately for me, my finances are a crucial role in my giving. Over many years of immaturity I have placed myself in a position that does not allow me to give as I’d like and should…
I am working on that by the way. Can’t say the immaturity is gone, but the disciplines are there now
my husband, inWorship, and I sit probably in the lower middle class and unfortunately can identify with this article. We don’t give as much as we should or would like to. I agree with my man, very challenging. Very convicting!
Shaun,
One of my wife’s psych classes focused on issues of wealth. One of her texts verified that the most generous givers were the poor and listed the sociological reasons for it.
Remarkably, the poor and the wealthy seem to have a similar view of money, it is to use. For the rich it is more about investment (even in charity: “Where can this benefit the most…”), for the poor about meeting needs. So poor people who get money, spend it quickly meeting needs and perceived future needs for their families, and also for those in need around them, so there is an empathetic aspect, but there is also a hopelessness to it. The poor, especially the generational poor, see no way out of poverty so there is no need to save. You get what you can when you have the means and get by the rest of the time however you can.
Since I am neither wealthy nor poor… I try to give as much as my finances allow. Since that amount is a finite sometimes I have to decide which charities I can give and how much.
I think “religious” people can often be empathatic but unfortunately with the surburbanization of many churches … many have isolated themselves(sometimes intentionally and sometimes not) from actually seeing the needs out there. After all, we won’t have enough money for that tiVo (insert status item of choice) if we give.
With many who think the government should “fix” the problem is so they don’t have to do anything but someone else should fix it so they don’t have to… after all, I have things I need…like a new tiVo (insert status item of choice).
It all stems from the heart.
Does the third point about the ‘religious’ giving 4x more explain the first point? How does he define conservative and not conservative?
Sounds like people need to read the book
He defines conservative politically, generalizing Democrat=liberal and Republican=conservative. Moderates are not mentioned. This bugs me more than a little. The labels just don’t fit everyone snugly, in fact, very few.
He uses a comparison of a Sioux Falls, South Dakota and San Francisco, California – just as radically opposite political and religious communities – at one point. I forget the percentages but it’s a tiny number of San Fran folks go to church services in a given week and call themselves conservative. Tiny. And then the opposite is true of Sioux Falls. San Fran is also wealthy compared with the rest of the nation, with almost no working poor (I guess he’s not counting Oakland just down the street huh?). Sioux Falls is relatively poor – working poor. (Toby, I liked your wife’s insight. Good stuff. But the poor she seems to be speaking about sound poorer than working poor. To me. Maybe I misread.)
Anyway, those cities give you an idea of what he seems to think is VERY conservative religious, working poor and what he considers VERY liberal, irreligious and middleclass/wealthy.
And, I didn’t want to believe this stuff. I assumed the guy was a conservative religious guy from a working class family. And he may be biased in that way or another. But he SAYS his hypothesis going into his work was the opposite of what he discovered. He THOUGHT the wealthy were more generous and the poor were less, etc. He seems shocked by his own research.
….interesting….
why didn’t you want to believe it?
I have a tough time believing that a researcher would be shocked by this. It seems consistent with past research on the topic and you would think that he would have done a literature search before doing his own research.
Oakland is relatively poor and very black. It could skew the results to compare Oakland with Souix Falls unless one wanted to bring race into the equation, which it doesn’t seem like Brooks did from your description. Black religiosity has different historically from white religiosity in many ways: political affiliation and the percent balance of christians and muslims being two significant ways that could effect this study.
San Fran and Souix Falls in many ways offers a valid contrast and even there I think that one could see the effects of religion on the generosity equation apart from cultural effects. If one looks at the percent of counter cultural people (GOP in SanFran and Dems in Souix Falls) I would think that there would be a very strong correlation between religion and party affiliation. Contrasting these two groups would provide interesting insights into the specific roles of religion and party affiliation when it comes to generosity. Of course, sometimes subcultures have an even stronger cultural effect overall that could skew the results, but it would perhaps offer a contrasting data subset without completely redoing the study.
MB
To answer your questions would take a whole new study, I think.
Very interesting statistics, though. Wonder how they cross over to Canada?