(3) The commonest fallacy lies in the argument that by lavish consumption the rich provide employment for the poor.  They provide employment, yes, in serving them.  They create needless work, where there is so much work crying to be done.  If that money is put into the bank, instead, or into stocks and bonds, it will employ men and women in really useful tasks.  If it is given to some of the worthy “causes” which are always handicapped for lack of funds, it will employ men in caring for the sick, in educating the ignorant, in feeding the hungry, or in bringing recreation and relief to the worn.  Every man or woman whose time and strength we buy for our personal service-valet, maid, gardener, dressmaker, chef, or what not-is taken away from the other work of the world.

(4) A certain hopelessness of effecting any good often paralyzes good will.  The help a little money can give seems like a drop in the bucket; its assistance is but for a day, and the need remains as great as ever.  It may even be worse than wasted; it may encourage shiftlessness, it may pauperize.  There is no doubt that indiscriminate and thoughtless charity is dangerous; the crude largesse of a few rich Romans of the Empire bred vast corruption and pauperism.  But there is much that can safely be done; there are many wise and cautious agencies at work for aid and uplift; and every little, if given to one of them, is of real help.

(5) It is sometimes said that if society discountenances luxury, the motive for hard and efficient work will be too much reduced; we need this extra spur to exertion.  But the earning of what may permissibly be spent on self is spur enough; there is no need of inordinate luxury to foster faithfulness and exertion.  The praise of superiors and equals, a moderate rise in scale of living, the shame of shirking, the instinctive glory in achievement, and the joy of helping others, are stimuli enough.

(6) Finally, the last argument of the selfish man is that “he has earned his money; it is his; he has a right to do with it as he pleases” This we cannot admit.  Legally he is as yet free so backward is our social order-to accumulate and spend upon himself vast sums.  But it is not best for society that he should, and so he is not morally justified therein.  We must agree with Carnegie that “whatever surplus wealth comes to him (beyond his needs and those of his family) is to be regarded as a social trust, which he is bound to administer for the good of his fellows”; and with Professor Sager, that “the general interest requires acceptance of the maxim:  the consumption of luxuries should be deferred until all are provided with necessaries.”  This does not mean that we need live like peasants, as Tolstoy advised, make our own shoes, and till our own plot of ground; nor that we must come down to the level of the lowest.  By doing that we should lose the great advantages of our material progress, which rests upon the high specialization of labor