Patronage/Matronage

[7Wannabe5]

Assume that you are free and secure in your ability to earn/churn $X/year doing only work you enjoy/find purposeful at a rate you find ideal. For instance, you work 4 mornings/week in a state of high flow/glow creating unique sculptural fountains that filter and repurpose industrial greywater, and you net $X/year from this activity. Assume also that your happiness maximizing spending level is $Y/year. How would you feel about supporting dependent others at the level of $(X-Y)/year? Under what circumstances, if any, would you (or have you) feel (felt)positive or negative about this possibility or reality?

[ertyu]

It would depend wholly and entirely on the quality of my relationship with said dependent others -- unless they happen to be direct family, e.g. parents or minor/not yet launched children. Children, I would support no questions asked as I believe not doing so makes you a garbage human. Parents, I would support if they are no longer able to support themselves (again, not doing so would make you a garbage human). I would have no issue supporting a significant other or an older child given I am somehow seeing that my money makes a difference. I would support a significant other who would like to, for instance, write or paint or putter around the house and garden. I would have a problem supporting a significant other who played video games all day and did not contribute to the running of the household. In general, with supporting adult others, enabling is a concern: supporting an active addict who is thus not forced to try and recover, or supporting an adult child terried of launching whose procrastination you enable.

The tl;dr: is that there isn't a one right answer and that it very much a case-by-case basis thing. I'm reminded of Ayn Rand who spend her entire life ranting against moochers only to end up supporting a mooching husband -- she claimed it was her right as an independently wealthy individual to support a moocher if she wants to.

[7Wannabe5]

@ertyu:

Yeah, I support some aspects of post-modernity, but I agree that the cultures that murder all widows or set toddlers out to fend for themselves at age 3 are pretty much garbage, although they might have some minor thing to offer in the way of something like, maybe, unique pottery design.

A further question would be, how would you feel about supporting a dependent who needed to spend more money than you in order to be happy vs. one whose spending was similar vs. one whose personal spending/resource usage was less than yours?

[enigmaT120]

What prompted the question? I do support another person, have done so since before we got married. I have mixed feelings about it, leaning towards opposition. We never had kids for her to raise. House and garden mostly her jobs.

[Peanut]

For me I think it would also depend on Z, or how much I had already saved, and perhaps X2, how much earning power potential my dependent was giving up in following non-monetary pursuits. Rand's Z was a big number, so it makes sense to me she wouldn't have practically cared what her husband did. Given her neverending spiel about productive work it seems odd she wouldn't have found it philosophically objectionable, but I don't know their story. Gender often plays a role in our feelings about economically dependent situations too of course, whether rightly or wrongly I'm not at all sure anymore.

[Peanut]

A further question would be, how would you feel about supporting a dependent who needed to spend more money than you in order to be happy vs. one whose spending was similar vs. one whose personal spending/resource usage was less than yours?

I think it would be a mistake to spend time and energy quantifying these differences unless y and x-y are hugely apart. Treating all expenses as shared is much more likely to be conducive to domestic harmony.

[jacob]

In terms of the circumstances I'd be looking at the marginal utility of that dollar spent. For example, I divert some of my X-Y surplus to patreon to people whom I think would spend it better than I do. (IOW for the purposes of using the money "well", I have too much and they have too little.) Think struggling artist minus the struggle of having to monetize.

I'd feel negative to the point of resentment if I was supporting bad planning or an anti-LBYM lifestyle (a situation where they money wasn't used "well") regardless of the amount of shared DNA. Likely the monetary support would come with so many conditions, stipulations, and unsolicited advice that the relationship would be unbearable to either side. This is probably tied into the fact that I think that base-level financial independence should be the default status of any adult. Thus if someone needed monetary support from me, I'd likely go out of my way to help them "grow up" instead. I'd believe that whatever help I could provide in that form would be more valuable than money from my perspective (but obviously not theirs). Of course, this would be interpersonally dysfunctional.

[7Wannabe5]

@enigmaT120:

Obviously, I was primarily prompted in asking the question by desire to more generally develop the concept of “lentil baby”, but also prompted by a number of other inputs, such as Jacob’s notes about contributing to Patreon, and my recent reading of Chelsea Handler’s (rare ENTJ female) memoir of her sexual misadventures in which she frequently tends towards being highly assertive and picking up tabs. Also, interests me on the basis of whether or not some subset of “patronage” belongs on list of human cultural universals.

Since you have shared some notes about your marriage elsewhere on the forum, my follow up question would be whether your feelings about providing financial support would be more positive if your contract did not also limit your sexual freedom and/or if your wife’s work in the household was inclusive of honoring your preferences for provision of such items as yummy salmon patties, fresh fluffy towels, and well lit reading space?

[Stahlmann]

@topic

isnt such thinking a bit opportunistic and objectifing your partner?
as in "the great cat problem"-topic which got closed.

[plot twist - Stahlmann changes his online personality one more time to check reactions of other forum participants]

[jacob]

A further question would be, how would you feel about supporting a dependent who needed to spend more money than you in order to be happy vs. one whose spending was similar vs. one whose personal spending/resource usage was less than yours?

I actually did not consider the last possibility because I rarely run into representatives from that group. I'd feel better about giving $50 to a homeless person than $50 to pay the cable bill of a family member who insists they can't survive without the sports package. There's also an implicit value judgement. E.g. I'd rather spend all day helping someone save $50 than I would pay $50 to fix the problem in 10 mins. Spending cash has an implicit moral dimension for me.

[7Wannabe5]

For me I think it would also depend on Z, or how much I had already saved, and perhaps X2, how much earning power potential my dependent was giving up in following non-monetary pursuits.

Yeah, that’s why I used the adjective “secure” in describing source of happy income to get around this level of objection. Unfortunately, my example didn’t make this clear. Of course, it could be a valid answer for some people that no amount of reserves or security of income would serve. For instance, my mega-millionaire friend supports some dependents, but the level of reserve/secure flow he requires in order to feel comfortable with this is humongous.

I think it would be a mistake to spend time and energy quantifying these differences unless y and x-y are hugely apart. Treating all expenses as shared is much more likely to be conducive to domestic harmony.

Very good point. Partnerships, whether full or partial, would often be another option vs. strict independent functioning.

[ertyu]

I guess I automatically think of a dependent as someone who, unless they are a parent or a child, would be a romantic partner. And I don't imagine myself successfully partnered with someone who wants to spend significantly more money than I do. I automatically assumed they would be an approximately equal level of cheap.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Would your take vary depending on your personal druthers regarding the specific art form? For example, your 19 year old niece who has proven herself capable of living independently in a tiny caravan while working as a barista, would like to park her tiny caravan in your backyard in order to be able to afford devotion to urban permaculture project vs. writing science fiction novel vs. experimental dance costume design.

I actually did not consider the last possibility because I rarely run into representatives from that group.

Lol- Okay, what if Rob Greenfield or some grubby kid hitchhiking her way to join Wheaton’s crew wanted to camp in your backyard?

[7Wannabe5]

@ertyu:

Obviously, you have not yet had a teenage daughter. Having been and had one myself, I know they will literally take the clothes right off of you, if they believe that they might look cute on them.

Also, I was attempting to extend the concept to forms of patronage beyond nuclear family level. For instance, how would you feel about supporting a writer’s colony if some of the very talented writers spend a lot of money on alcohol?

[Stahlmann]

wrt Ayn Rand - It's worth noting she ended up using governmental help.

it's important, bc in high school fell into trap of extreme libertarianism by watching some edgdy (though poor) youtuber.
in this moment, I'm being involved in trolling such figure (asking uneasy questions like what's his social class and ROI during past 15 yrs).
I'm also prolly more "capitalist" and "resilient" than him btw.

[7Wannabe5]

isnt such thinking a bit opportunistic and objectifing your partner?
as in "the great cat problem"-topic which got closed.

Well, obviously, a lot of muck and validation needs can get wrapped up in primary romantic relationships. That’s why I think it’s useful to consider the question in relationship to broader opportunities for patronage.

WRT Rand: Direct government assistance or personal allowance provided by Greenspan?

[Stahlmann]

WRT Rand: Direct government assistance or personal allowance provided by Greenspan?

AFAIR she claimed it "earned". I didn't went into details, because I'm not familiar with US system. Still, it's about writing about almost mythological personas and "believing' they should represent reality (in meantime it could be based on fact that her parents got kulakized in USSR). Sure, "there're no atheists in foxholes"-problem.

also: article on rational wiki.

[daylen]

I would save until I had about 50*Y, just in case job circumstances changed. I would probably pick a simple portfolio of indexes+cash and not spend much time thinking or micro-managing my money at that point. Perhaps I would give some away using something like patreon. I wouldn't mind having one tenant who paid rent in labor but only if I liked them (and had land for gardening or something). My parents would be welcome to stay.

[jacob]

Would your take vary depending on your personal druthers regarding the specific art form?

Yes, patronage is only given to efforts I'd like to see more of in the world [than what currently exists because of economic inefficiencies(*).] I'll leave the implementation to the person, whether it's Bukowski turning alcohol into short stories or a scientist turning coffee into papers, I'd pay for whatever fuel if I like the end result or the process by which results are achieved. The last distinction is important because in some cases creative independence is the result.

(*) So I support efforts that are incompatible with commercialization because I think the world has too few of those.

[7Wannabe5]

@jacob:

Yes, I agree with your take vis-a-vis creative independence.

I have a follow-up question, for you or anybody else who would care to chime in, which I believe requires at least 4th order thinking*. If we abstract and generalize the roles of patron and patronee, but also assume, perhaps contrary to stereotype or norm, that the patron is at best a 3rd Order thinker and the patronee is at least a 4th order thinker, what is our take on the morality and/or ultimate utility of taking some advantage of this differential in order to move funds towards support of project aimed at some higher good?



*I’m very much enjoying “In Over Our Heads.”