Shedding some light on a brother's life
The following is a Counterpoint column:
By Martin Love
As an editor myself, most recently at Vietnam's national English language newspaper and at a newly minted magazine in Hanoi, I must offer mild criticism of Jim Schlosser's piece (Feb. 4) on the demise and life of my half brother, Richard Love.
He never did graduate from UNC-Chapel Hill, as Schlosser wrote.
He was never "rich," although he did try to come off as such, which probably was his prime weakness.
Actually, for most of his adult life, Richard Love lived a hand-to-mouth existence. He borrowed big from his mother in Connecticut, when she was alive, and others. Heavy indebtedness is not wealth. He never made much in his home-building activities, despite a certain artistic flair that resulted in some lovely homes.
It has always been a misconception of the Greensboro newspapers that the Love family was "rich." J. Spencer Love's estate was less than $2 million when he died in 1962. The highest salary he ever made at the company he created was $125,000. He eschewed the accumulation of wealth and gave away most of what he could have kept for education, health care and many other worthy causes. All this utterly pales in comparison to what rapacious CEOs do and make in today's corporate world, even when they are fired for incompetence.
When my mother (not Richard's mother) died, for instance, the surviving four children had to do a "tag sale" for the house's contents on Granville Road in Greensboro and had to sell the house because none of the children could afford to live there going forward. This was in 1980. Most of Love's children are noted for superlative performances in academia and careers in education, journalism and other low-paying professions. By Irving Park standards today, the Loves were never "rich," any of them. It just seemed like they had to be because Spencer Love founded and managed a great company, which peaked the year he died and died a slow death afterward, the victim of greedy managers who cared more about lining their own pockets than anything else.
The writer lives in Chapel Hill.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
His estate was worth "less than $2 million when he died in 1962"
His highest salary "was $125,000"
Perspective provided by an inflation calculator:
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
$2 million in 1962
equals
$13,720,646 in 2007
($13.7 million)
$125,000 per year in 1962
equals
$857,540 in 2007
($.86 million per year)
I hope I can burden myself with similar misconceptions of being not-rich when it comes time to pass on. Or even 1/2 as not-rich twenty years before passing...
Roger
Posted on February 15, 2008 5:14 AM
Roger,
Thank you for providing a different perspective. I was a grown woman in 1962 (or so I thought) and would have considered myself "rich" with a couple of million. Also, if Love's estate was that much after giving away "most" of his fortune, that would have made him wealthy indeed.
This sounds like a sour grapes ltte and shows poor taste. Public airing of dirty laundry sprinkled with a touch of jealousy does not reflect well on Martin.
Posted on February 15, 2008 6:42 AM
Regarding comments to my piece on Richard Love, points well taken. But my prime point in writing my piece is that Schlosser made far too much about Richard Love's wrongly presumed wealth, and implied that such might have been cause for his business arrears. As if to suggest generally that anyone supposedly "rich" can and does avoid perfect business dealings. Indeed, whatever wealth the Love family has had, however one wants to perceive it as great or small, has largely been deployed, even disgorged, in beneficial and philanthropic ways over many decades. The family maintains a tradition of progressive liberalism and generosity, both professionally and personally, and has for well over a century. Anyway, Richard's demise is a sad tragedy. A reporter ought to avoid a primary focus that involves bashing the life/death of anyone who must have suffered as much as Richard Love certainly did.
Posted on February 15, 2008 8:42 AM
Martin,
Shame on you. I agree with Yvonne. This is sour grapes and whatever dislike you had for your brother should have remained private.
Posted on February 15, 2008 8:53 AM
Martin may not BE rich but he sure SOUNDS rich.
Posted on February 15, 2008 12:31 PM
Having $2 million, even today, would place a person in the top 5% of wealth holders in the nation.
I assume the writer has wealth enough to consider $2 million (or as Roger noted, $13 million in current dollars) "not rich". Only a rich person would consider such wealth as trivial.
Good thing these "not rich" folks never had to deal with what the other 95% of Americans live with every day...they would break under the pressure.
One thing the Love family never did, apparently, was learn familial loyalty. Whatever issues my family may have, you will never learn about them through me and especially not in a public forum.
Posted on February 15, 2008 2:30 PM
Martin: I think most of us understand the points you were trying to make regarding Mr. Schlosser's article about your late brother, Richard. I'm sorry that your points were misunderstood. I am sure that you and your family found the article hurtful and in poor taste. It was as if Mr. Schlosser was attacking Richard. I was looking for the basis of the storyline and still am not sure what its purpose was.
Richard was a very kind man and did not deserve to have such a negative story written about his life and death. The Richard Love Construction Co. was a very small business. His business did not make a lot of money and often struggled with overhead, just like the rest of us. Richard was too trusting for his own good. As we all know, regardless of our line of work, a few poor decisions can snowball and have a long lasting effect. Sometimes his good intentions met with roadblocks beyond his control, and it often takes a long time to recover from mistakes in judgment. Richard was not an evil man, he was not a mean man. I think he honestly tried to build homes that the occupants would LOVE, not just live in. Richard may not have had the best business sense about him but he was a kind soul. I think Richard felt some sense of loss and deep inside was a very sad person. He wanted to add so much beauty to the world, he wanted to leave a mark.
Its a shame that such an ugly article was written about him. I know he is missed.
Posted on February 16, 2008 2:08 AM