See
more of the story
Do super-rich people deserve what they have?
Readers wrote me their thoughts about that question after my recent column about how Minnesotans' perceptions of billionaire Denny Sanford are influencing the proposed merger of South Dakota-based Sanford Health with Fairview Health, the Minneapolis-based system that has a partnership with the University of Minnesota's medical school.
That column drew the most reader reaction of any I've written in the past six or so weeks — when I last publicly responded to reader comments.
I didn't raise that question in the column. But that's what some readers took out of a paragraph in which I said that you could hold two opposing thoughts about Sanford the person: that he grew wealthy off people who were poor and that he's done a lot of good with his money.
Sanford, for those who need reminding, built a fortune in a Twin Cities chemicals business before buying a Sioux Falls bank that he turned into a leading provider of subprime credit cards. Now 87, Sanford remains chair of First Premier Bank. The health system took his name after he began making big donations to it 16 years ago.
It was a subsequent paragraph that prompted several readers to reach out to me directly. That one began, "It doesn't seem right that some people get outsized amounts of money."
Though by that point of the article, I (at least in my mind) was referring not just to Sanford, nor just to wealthy philanthropists but to the broader unfairness about a small number of people controlling a lot of money. On reflection, I could have more precisely written something like "It doesn't seem right that some people get power over outsized amounts of money."
Quite a number of readers wrote that Sanford didn't "get" his money, he "earned" it. One metro-area writer said the word "get" had cast an "unfair light" on Sanford.
I heard more in my e-mail from people like that writer who thought the column hit at Sanford. But the online comments on the column showed a wider variety of opinions, including many who were critical of him.
I don't have a knee-jerk animus towards billionaires and the ultra-wealthy. It is rare to find a billionaire who isn't sharp, driven and interesting. But when you get into the stratospheric heights of wealth, the line between "earning" and "getting," or "getting lucky," does get less fine.
There are exceptional, hard-working leaders of companies in the Twin Cities, for instance, who will not become billionaires even though the firms they lead are large and well-known. Their tenures will be too short, or they will not own a big enough portion of a business, even one that's rising in value, to cross that threshold.
Making money is not the same as making a play in a sport. Equal efforts in business don't yield equal point totals.
It will be no surprise that for me, as for many journalists, the measure of any business leader or owner is his or her willingness to be questioned about their relevant work.
We've seen a lot of action, particularly this past week, that suggests execs at the Fairview and Sanford systems are finding a way to resolve differences with the U and state officials. Even so, I'll be surprised if the matter ends without some public statements by Sanford himself. I'll keep trying to reach him, as I know other journalists are.
On a slightly separate note, another reader described working at a subprime card issuer that competed with Sanford's First Premier. I thought I walked the line in my portrayal of the business, but he felt I unfairly criticized it.
"People with low credit scores are often a result of a divorce, job loss, health issues with them or a family member," he wrote. "These companies play a vital role at allowing consumers to climb out of the situation they are in."
Some readers pointed out that by focusing on Sanford the person, I was missing that public perceptions on a merger of the Fairview and Sanford health systems should really be shaped by whether it makes sense financially.
In the broader context of the reporting by my Star Tribune colleagues on the evolving financial circumstances of the three parties, one column about Sanford (or two if you count this one) is simply evidence of something that everyone in business knows: In any deal, there are tangible figures and intangible forces.
