Man with sick wife, overdue rent, returns $17,000

Phoenix32890 wrote:

One person's need is not another person's obligation.

Well, there's the fundamental philosophical difference.

I do believe that one person's need is another's obligation. That's why I pay my taxes gladly, and why I believe in both our countries' system of progressive taxation.

Basically, yes, if you've had the luck to be rich, then you have the obligation to do your bit for those who werent that lucky.

0 Replies

I agree with that part -- taxes, etc. -- I just don't think it's obvious that it applies to this situation.

For example, what if it wasn't even her money? That she was bringing it from America (for example) on behalf of someone working there and sending money back to his family? And she was en route to taking it to that family, and that's part of why she left it untouched (rather than peeling some off and giving it to him) and paid from her own pocket (pesos rather than dollars)?

Main point is not that it did happen that way, but that we don't have enough info.

0 Replies

I agree. There's just not enough info to make a judgment. We know all about the man's personal troubles but nothing about what was going on in her life at the time.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Why does it matter if she was rich compared to local wages? The fact is that if she was from a higher cost of living place then she has less of that money to burn. She may very well have needed every dime of that money. The whole premise behind the argument that she could have given more is that she presumably had more to spare. But you don't know that.

Define "may very well have needed every dime".

I'm not just being flippant. Your disagreement with me was that I called her "rich": you protested that "I'm not going to assume that the woman was rich because she had 17000 in cash." Well, I'll argue that even if she was a tourist - definitely if she were a tourist - she was rich. Pretty much by definition.

We're talking the Phillippines here. Average wage is $200 a month. Someone who can afford to go on overseas holidays therefore is by definition rich, even if he is a backpacker (and backpackers dont usually carry 17,000$ in cash around). If I'm in the Philippines, I'm rich. You'd be too.

I mean, seriously. If she was a tourist holidaying in the Philippines, surely she had more than seven measly bucks to spare for the guy who returned her 17 grand in cash that she'd considered lost forever. I mean, a hotel costs more than that a night, in the Third World too. I cant believe we're even arguing this. If she was so hard up that she needed "every dime" and just couldnt afford to give away more than seven bucks, she couldnt have been holidaying in the Philippines.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

I'm not just being flippant. Your disagreement with me was that I called her "rich": you protested that "I'm not going to assume that the woman was rich because she had 17000 in cash." Well, I'll argue that even if she was a tourist - definitely if she were a tourist - she was rich. Pretty much by definition.

I don't agree because I see being "rich" as relative to one's own living situation and circumstances, neither of which we know about this woman. You see it as being relative to someone else's situation. I don't agree. Better off, maybe, probably even. But rich?

Quote:

We're talking the Phillippines here. Average wage is $200 a month. Someone who can afford to go on overseas holidays therefore is by definition rich, even if he is a backpacker (and backpackers dont usually carry 17,000$ in cash around). If I'm in the Philippines, I'm rich. You'd be too.

This seems to be your own interpretation, which you are welcome to, but I don't see how being rich can be defined by location.

Quote:

I mean, seriously. If she was a tourist holidaying in the Philippines, surely she had more than seven measly bucks to spare for the guy who returned her 17 grand in cash that she'd considered lost forever.

My point is that it's all an IF. We don't know what she was doing there, where she's from, or what the money was for. We don't know where the money came from or where it was going. And she gave him more than 7 measly bucks.

Quote:

I mean, a hotel costs more than that a night, in the Third World too. I cant believe we're even arguing this. If she was so hard up that she needed "every dime" and just couldnt afford to give away more than seven bucks, she couldnt have been holidaying in the Philippines.

The point is that I don't know her situation. You don't know her situation. And you're making a judgment that she was stingy based on numbers alone. I know that you feel strongly about these things but I just don't see it your way today. I'm witholding judgment.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I agree with that part -- taxes, etc. -- I just don't think it's obvious that it applies to this situation.

For example, what if it wasn't even her money? That she was bringing it from America (for example) on behalf of someone working there and sending money back to his family? And she was en route to taking it to that family, and that's part of why she left it untouched (rather than peeling some off and giving it to him) and paid from her own pocket (pesos rather than dollars)?

Hypothetically everything is possible. She could have been a nurse taking it to the Philippines on behalf of a mortally sick nun she'd spent her waking days caring for, who on her deathbed had pleaded to her to bring it to her aging saint of a mother, whom the money would help save an adopted disabled orphan from certain death by paying for a rare, specialist operation. Razz

But I mean, bottom line - even between the most favourable hypothetical scenarios that you (pl.) have sketched - that it was her bosses' money; that she was carrying it for a migrant family remitting it home - I cant see any way in which it doesnt make someone look bad. Surely if she was bringing seventeen hard-saved grand to a migrant's family back home, and she lost it for what must have seemed like forever, the family wouldnt have minded giving a little bit more than 0,2% of the amount to the unbelievably honest guy who returned the money rather than using it for his indebted family and hospitalised wife?

And mind you - that is just going on the most sympathetic hypothetical scenario anyone here has thought up yet on the woman's behalf. It is much more likely, meanwhile - not certain, of course, but more likely - that she was just a rich Philipinno lady or some rich tourist.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

She gave him $32??!

Jesus. Makes you wish he'd just kept it.

How the rich treat the poor...

Have only read the 1st 3 pages, so forgive me if this was address, but...

How do you know the money was hers?
She could have been carrying the money for her employer.

I'm just surprised at you for making the assumption she's rich, what with other threads you've posted in recently being so against assuming what a person is like by what they do for a living, etc.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:
We're talking the Phillippines here. Average wage is $200 a month. Someone who can afford to go on overseas holidays therefore is by definition rich, even if he is a backpacker (and backpackers dont usually carry 17,000$ in cash around). If I'm in the Philippines, I'm rich. You'd be too.

This seems to be your own interpretation, which you are welcome to, but I don't see how being rich can be defined by location.

Are you seriously saying that if you were travelling in the Philippines, you wouldnt consider yourself rich? Or that if someone would call you rich, you'd disagree?

I've only been in developing countries once, on a holiday with my mother in Zimbabwe and Botswana - and I can tell you, we may have been just regular middle-class back home, but it was sure a powerful reminder just how befortuned we are - just how rich we are, yes.

FreeDuck wrote:

And she gave him more than 7 measly bucks.

My bad. $32 it was.

0 Replies

Well that's why I mentioned that the transaction happened right there at the police station, though. If it wasn't her money, it wasn't something where she could discuss and then decide what to do -- it all happened within minutes.

Bottom line -- we don't know.

Does it mean anything to you that the guy needed to be prodded into accepting even the P1,500? That's part of what affects my "not horrible person" perspective.

0 Replies

Oh, I can think of many hypothetical scenarios that are plenty sympathetic. But we still don't know. That's it, nothing else. We just don't know. We can make assumptions and presumptions all the live long day but in the end we still don't know.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Quote:
We're talking the Phillippines here. Average wage is $200 a month. Someone who can afford to go on overseas holidays therefore is by definition rich, even if he is a backpacker (and backpackers dont usually carry 17,000$ in cash around). If I'm in the Philippines, I'm rich. You'd be too.

This seems to be your own interpretation, which you are welcome to, but I don't see how being rich can be defined by location.

Are you seriously saying that if you were travelling in the Philippines, you wouldnt consider yourself rich? Or that if someone would call you rich, you'd disagree?

I don't know, I don't know how much it costs to travel in the Phillipines. But I've travelled to one or two countries that could be considered third world, and though my money went further there than it does here, I don't consider myself rich by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:

I've only been in developing countries once, on a holiday with my mother in Zimbabwe and Botswana - and I can tell you, we may have been just regular middle-class back home, but it was sure a powerful reminder just how befortuned we are - just how rich we are, yes.

So do you still consider yourself rich, or was it just a temporary state of richness?

0 Replies

I take sozobe's points about the dispersement of "here, take this" that happened at the police station and that we don't know about money source or the woman's power to give more of a thank you packet.

Perhaps for Phoenix and people who agree with her,
"Bottom line, the financial state of the finder of the money, IMO, has nothing to do with anything."

People poor, people rich, and those in between, can be honest, and a poor person just as quick and adamant about honesty as any other.
But, to me, the step of handing in a sack of many dollars is, for a poor person not sure where the next meals are coming from, the rent coming from, the wife's health... is not the same exact act as that of a person of financial security handing in the same sack, whether or not the person is actually tempted to keep it.

On the reward, I thought the $32. a big "huh?", but I don't know enough yet. I've presumed the lady was a messenger of some sort; I guess I presume she didn't know his rent and hospital story. Anyway, I'm my take on that is unresolved right now.

0 Replies

Maybe the money was set to open a school for the children of impoverished taxi drivers.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Quote:
I've only been in developing countries once, on a holiday with my mother in Zimbabwe and Botswana - and I can tell you, we may have been just regular middle-class back home, but it was sure a powerful reminder just how befortuned we are - just how rich we are, yes.

So do you still consider yourself rich, or was it just a temporary state of richness?

It's definitely imbued me with a sense of how fortuned circumstances we live in.

Even as I may struggle to pay my $x monthly rent sometimes - I live IN an apartment thats $x a month. I mean, it's 70 square meters! Thats a lot of space (about 750 sq foot).

In Holland I would not be considered rich, no. But I would be ashamed if I were to be holidaying in the Philippines and argue to anyone that, no, really, I'm not rich at all. Let alone, of course, if I were to argue that I "need every dime" of the money I have, and I just dont have more than a 0,2% reward "to spare" when someone returns me 17 grand.

Damn, I'd just skip a daytrip or two or three so that I would have it.

I mean, by the time you have enough money to go holidaying abroad, you have a choice. Its not like you'd have to go without food if you'd give someone who does something as great as this more money.

(And again, I dont know that the woman was a tourist - I'm just arguing against your point here that if she were a tourist, that wouldnt necessarily mean she'd have any money to spare.)

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

(And again, I dont know that the woman was a tourist - I'm just arguing against your point here that if she were a tourist, that wouldnt necessarily mean she'd have any money to spare.)

My point wasn't that if she were a tourist that she wouldn't necessarily have the money to spare. My point was that she wasn't necessarily rich, wasn't necessarily from the Phillipines or didn't necessarily live there so that comparing the 17,000 to the incomes of ordinary Philippinos wouldn't tell you whether or not she herself was rich. Like I said, there are many other circumstances I can see. A woman who was from the Philippines but worked in the US and was bringing that money back for HER family who needed it.

The overall point is that we just don't know enough to make such a judgment about her. There are umpteen possibilities that don't lead us to the conclusion that she was being stingy.

0 Replies

OK, bear with me while I go back to the more philosophical subject that Phoenix broached.

nimh wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
One person's need is not another person's obligation.

Well, there's the fundamental philosophical difference.

I do believe that one person's need is another's obligation. That's why I pay my taxes gladly, and why I believe in both our countries' system of progressive taxation.

Basically, yes, if you've had the luck to be rich, then you have the obligation to do your bit for those who werent that lucky.

Apart from the principle of solidarity itself, the main possible bone of contention that people might have with this, I'm guessing, is that they might bristle at my use of the word "luck".

They might say, "well I'm relatively well to do, and that wasnt no luck - I worked my ass off to get where I am now!". And of course, effort and discipline deserve being rewarded.

The thing is that, in a country, and in a world, where people end up earning not just five or ten times as much, but a hundred or a thousand times as much as other people, we are in no way anymore talking just the difference that hard work makes.

We are talking luck - the luck of being born in the right country or into the right family, to have had parents who imbued us with social skills and knowledge that enable us to achieve, to have a talent that happens to be priced high in the economy, etc.

Basically, beyond that extent to which working hard and saving up can help you, say, double your income, the vagaries of the wage system we have now are just like a giant lottery. You drew the lot of being born with the talent to develop mad computer skillz - well, in our market economy, thats priced with earning.. <pulls number from the big bowl of globalisation> ... ten times more!

----------------

OK, so how does all that relate to this case of the motorcycle cabbie and his honesty?

Phoenix said:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

If something does not belong to you, it is not yours, whether you are rich or poor. Being poor does not entitle you to more consideration for simply doing the right thing.

This approach looks at the event in isolation, and insists that that's the only right way to look at it: returning found money is good, and not returning it is bad, no matter who the persons involved are, or what their disparate life circumstances are.

Phoenix therefore rhetorically asked, "Are [posters here] really saying that they would NOT expect that person [ie, someone as poor as the cabbie was] to do the right thing, and that somehow acting morally was "special", and should be rewarded?"

But regarding looking at things in isolation, nothing happens in a moral vacuum. Moral judgement calls are always influenced in some way or another by context. To just go straight for the jugular - the classic, extreme example - a man who steals a bread to feed his starving children is not just a bad thief.

Let me put it this way. Back in Holland, my income fell in the bottom 10% or 20% or so. And that was still fine - until I had to provide for my girlfriend as well. Here in Hungary, meanwhile, I earn roughly the same; except that here, it's more something like, I dunno, two to four times the average income. In relative terms, it's.. comfortable.

And the thing is, I mean - I do my job well, I think, so I earn my wages. But there's no way that I work three times as much, or that what I do is three times as difficult, as that of my Hungarian assistant, who earns a third of what I do. Or than that of my friend who works long nights as a barmaid, and earns just $300 a month. I earn my living honestly - but there's no way that it's fair that I get this much, and they only that much.

OK, so I still dont ever carry 17 grand around. Or a hundred bucks, even. But I did lose a fourty dollar bill a few months ago. I was pissed, cause that's still a lot of money for me. Now if someone were to have seen me - the expat sitting on the city terrace, say, or sweeping by on his smart-looking bicycle - drop it, he wouldnt know if I were an expat teacher on a lucky spell, or a millionaire investment banker. But, if it were your average- or below-average income Hungarian, he would know that chances were I was doing at least as well as him, and very likely unreasonably better. So would I expect him to give it back to me?

Giving it back would certainly have been the honest thing to do. But it wouldnt necessarily have been fair. Because you know what? It may have been my money - but it was unfair that I had that money in the first place, and he didn't.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

My point was that she wasn't necessarily rich, wasn't necessarily from the Phillipines or didn't necessarily live there so that comparing the 17,000 to the incomes of ordinary Philippinos wouldn't tell you whether or not she herself was rich.

Yeah. Thats where we're stuck. You say that you "don't see how being rich can be defined by location." I dont get that. Even a working-class American or Dutchman is rich when he is in Manilla. Dont see a way around that. We'll have to agree to not understand each other on this one.

FreeDuck wrote:

Like I said, there are many other circumstances I can see. A woman who was from the Philippines but worked in the US and was bringing that money back for HER family who needed it.

All of the $16,968 left? They couldnt do with any less, faced with a guy who saved them from losing all of the 17K?

Like I said, together you have come up with some of the most favourable possible scenarios, and yet even in them (this one included), I cant see any way in which it doesnt make someone look bad.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

She gave him $32??!

Jesus. Makes you wish he'd just kept it.

How the rich treat the poor...

Maybe it makes you wish he'd kept it, but it certainly doesn't have that affect on me.

The closing thought in this post brought me back to your other thread in a flash and an associated jump in my blood pressure.

In one sweeping over-generalization you have categorized a woman who left a significant amount of money in a cab as "the rich" and the man who was driving the cab as "the poor". Without any other knowledge of this woman's circumstances or whether the money even belonged to her, you come down with an indictment over those who have means and how the "treat" those who don't.

Did she deserve a slap in the face as well?

Jesus, nimh... I have no idea where these responses from you originate but the assumptions and generalities you apply to people are IMO unfounded.

0 Replies

Does it say that she took the reward money out of the bag? Or, if she's only entrusted with the bag, did she take the reward money from her own pocket as a thank-you to the driver that saved her from having to explain the loss of $17,000?

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

Maybe the money was set to open a school for the children of impoverished taxi drivers.

Maybe she was a stripper and taking the money to the back for the owner of the club where she worked. Or maybe she was going around and collecting all the proceeds for the night from all the strip clubs around town.

Maybe the $17 was her share of her tips, and she gave ALL of it to the cab driver. That would have been extremely generous.

0 Replies

Man with sick wife, overdue rent, returns $17,000

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know