Air Date - April 3, 2006

A few days ago I spoke with Willard Theissen about my up and coming interview on It’s A New Day. He and I only did one show on the subject of The Secret of Happiness. It’ll be aired on April 3, 2006.

Although I wrote this book on my vacation in Mexico, in about a week, it’s been the most popular book so far. I’m looking into republishing it in hard-cover as a gift book.

The concept, it is more blessed to give than to receive, is simple but it runs contrary to what we’ve been taught in life. We’ve learned that if we have $10 and give away $2, then we have $8. If we have one hundred and sixty-eight hours in the week and we spend one day helping someone in need, then we’ve lost eight of our precious hours.

I love what Thomas Stanley wrote in his book Millionaire Women Next Door. He says there are multiple benefits that donors receive from being generous. He concludes that "people who annually give away at least ten percent of their income to a noble cause are likely to:

1. gain more respect;


2. have more joy and happiness in their lives; and


3. encounter increases in their wealth and net worth."

Here’s what Stanley wrote in response to the question: Is contributing to charitable or noble causes a complement or a substitute in regard to the accumulation of wealth?

The answer seems logical enough. Consider these case examples: Tina Patron (TP) is a generous person, and she donates at least ten percent of her income each year. Olga Price (OP) donates far less, at most one percent. All else—income, age, and several other wealth correlates—being equal, Olga should have a higher level of net worth, so logic suggests that giving to noble causes is a substitute, not a complement, to accumulating wealth.

Well, so much for college-classroom and economic-textbook logic. All things are not equal in such situations. My data from two groups of high-income-producing women suggest that giving and wealth are indeed complements, not substitutes. All those surveyed had annual realized earned incomes of $100,000 or more, and all were owners and mangers of their own businesses. Each respondent was randomly selected from my national-survey database, and two groups, each containing survey data from one hundred women, provided the empirical base for this analysis. As detailed later, on the average both groups were similar in terms of age and income.

The first group of one hundred women was labeled “ten percenters” (TPs, Tina Patron types). They gave at least ten percent of their annual realized income to charitable and noble causes each year. The second group of one hundred women was labeled “one percenters” (OPs, or Olga Price types); they gave one percent or less. Thus, on average, TPs contributed $41, 543, while their counterpart OPs contributed just $2,355.

You may logically conclude the OPs would have considerably more wealth accumulated. They are not “burdened” with doling out $41,543 annually. Again, so much for logic. In spite of contributing ten percent or more of their annual realized income each year, the TPs have a higher level of net worth than do the OPs: $2.03 million versus $1.96 million.

Imagine that—God was right! I hope you'll watch my interview and let me know what you think.

Barry