Compensation is about risk taken and value delivered. If people get wealthy for the valuable risks (as perceived by the consumers of their products/services) they've taken, they deserve to be appropriately rewarded.
However, all people have a social responsibility to better humankind. If someone becomes fabulously wealthy, it would be nice to think they would give something back to those less fortunate than they are. After all, how much money can one spend in a lifetime before it all gets to be overly selfish and downright greedy?
I can't tell you how much it angers me to know that Bernie Ebbers (former WorldCom CEO) is poised to the recipient of a $300M loan from WorldCom that will be dissolved if WorldCom goes under. Is that socially responsible? I hope the SOB is sleeping miserably right now if nothing else. ************************************************* 07-03-02, 12:44 AM mahal That's a double-edged sword. If you take away the right of a private citizen to make a fortune and live the American Dream, you're taking away your own right to do the same.
Money's not so important, but freedom is.
07-03-02, 01:01 AM Strider0 Nobody should take away the right to live their dream. And further, there shouldn't be any unrealistic deterrents to creating value in a society of people either. But, having said that, nobody should be dissolved or their social responsibility to their society.
07-03-02, 10:13 PM gizmogram You know, I'm sure there's a story in the paper archives that I could cite if I could remember the name of the company....
Maybe user "Minnesota" remembers in case he visits this area...
Anyway, I want to say it was around Christmas last year...there was a company near the Twin Cities that (I believe) was closing. The company was owned by one man, and as a thank you (and probably a tax write-off), he gave millions of dollars to his workers. I want to say there were only a few hundred employees, so they came away with quite a bit of money, and quite a bit of gratitude. I heard a radio interview with this gentleman, and he sounded genuinely pleased that he was able to do this for the people who had helped make him so successful.
I guess it's not all about greed, huh?
I don't necessarily think that company owners need to "give" it back, but it's good practice to put some back in for employee programs, promotions, raises, incentives, etc. to keep their employees happy.
07-05-02, 10:14 AM Wordsmth True, there are abuses in a capitalistic system. (There are also abuses in socialistic systems; consider the former USSR, for instance.)
More to your point, though--leaving aside those instances where money has been generated illegally--to whom should the rich return their money? Many people become rich, or at least wealthy, by producing a product or service that other people want, and then selling that product or service at a profit. I bought a Gateway computer, an HP printer, and a box of paper from Staples. In each case, the sellers probably made some money on the transaction. That's OK with me. And if Gateway sells a million computers to customers who voluntarily purchase their products, Ted Waite may get rich(er). And if HP keeps turning out good printers that people want to buy, HP (including its many stockholders) will receive revenue. And when I buy paper, Staples and whoever manufactured the paper (Georgia-Pacific, for instance) makes money.
Leaving aside the important issue that the profit motive promotes innovation--and addressing your specific question--who should Ted Waite, HP's stockholders, and Staples return their money to? Me? Hey, I'd be glad to take it, but I'm not asking for it. I made a decision when I bought by computer, printer, and paper that the price (including the profit) was reasonable for the product I was receiving. And it was. So don't return it to me.
07-07-02, 05:44 PM crescen7 This question makes about as much sense. Wealthy people are wealthy because they CREATE WEALTH not because they take it from people.
It would make as much sense to say Barry Bonds is unfairly logging too many home runs - and thereby depriving others of all those homeruns, which should be more evenly and fairly distributed.
07-07-02, 10:44 PM hippolips When and if this country ever goes down the tube...you can blame it all on the GB's The GB's [Greedy Bastards] are those individuals and corporations who place their own personal greed above the welfare of this country. The GB's are those who have more money than God ...yet they still crave more!They are those who continue to gobble up smaller companies in mergers...they then lay off thousands of American workers with good paying jobs..and then,after closing their American plants,build new plants in foreign countries and hire foreign workers at a fraction of what they would pay American workers.These are the GB's[Greedy Bastards] in action! I have no gripe with the Rich,,,only with the GREEDY Rich.I have no gripe with those who grow rich by growing their companies with new and better products and create new jobs for American workers in the process. I have a real gripe with those who grow rich by destroying American jobs.These are the same guys who get all bent out of shape when Americans buy foreign products screaming we should buy American while they build their products in some other country.Loyalty is a two way street. GREED will destroy this country faster than any enemy.When every body in this country ends up working for the same wage that they pay an entry level job at McDonald's,,,the Greedy Bastards will be really happy until they realize that no one can afford to buy what the Greedy Bastards are selling! mad roll eyes razz mad
07-08-02, 12:07 AM coldfuse Successful businessmen compensate others to work for them. In a free market, those that work for them are free to work somewhere else. That they do not is evidence that they are either satisfied with the deal or, based on their work skills and motivation, have the deal that they have chosen.
And what do they do with the money they "keep" for themselves? They can spend it on goods or services, providing wages for those working for other businesses. They can put it in a bank or invest it, providing capital for activities that produce income for other people. They can provide money for charity, which in turn provides either wages for charity workers or direct support for those in need. Any number of other things they can do with the money results in income for other people.
I suppose they could burn the money, which wouldn't make a heck of a lot of sense and wouldn't do anybody much good. But how often does this happen?
The crooks in the bunch need to be caught, held accountable, prosecuted and punished for their actions. Stockholders who permit golden parachutes, overpaid executives, etc. are only cheating themselves. However, those acting responsibly, regardless of their wealth, are essential to the engine of a free market economy.
I suppose we could "punish" the capitalists. Naturally, this would discourage capitalism. Why would this be better for people who depend on the paychecks capitalism provides?
The question supposes that the money belonged to the workers in the first place. If it did, why did they give it away to the "rich people.?" Is that what you meant to imply?
07-08-02, 01:17 PM hippolips The reason that Robin Hood stole from the rich is because the poor had no money. wink roll eyes big grin razz
07-12-02, 08:04 PM EBknowsBUBBA I have absolutely no problem with rich people. Especially those who are self made and started from nothing. People who have experienced set-backs on the way up. Yet their persistance paid off. smile
Where I do have a problem with is this. Corporate greed. Cooking the books. Situations like Enron & World Com. Highly paid executives bailing out of their companies in golden parachutes and leaving the employees and stock holders holding the bag. And these people were paid well for their decision making ability to run their companies. Yet they mismanage and lead it into bankruptcy. mad
07-13-02, 09:31 PM Strider0 Hey, philanthropy is an awesome thing. In fact, I want to be a philanthropist when I grow up! wink
07-13-02, 10:09 PM MrSensitive The only greedy bastards who should be giving money back to the hard workers of the world are the people in government who have no problem spending the endless supply of money they steal from us on a daily basis.
Mr(greed beats need)Sensitive
07-29-02, 07:37 AM Wildflower63 I'm not sure that I totally understand the question. The rich people need to give who their money back? I find it difficult to criticize wealth is earned by an innovation that made money. After death, we should be able to pass our wealth down to who we choose whether they need it or not. The rich people create jobs for those not so rich by opening business with their investments. People should get a fair wage for their ability and contribution to the company they work for. Shouldn't an individual or collection of investors rightfully profit from what they have created?
Not all earn the same things out of life. Why would anyone go get a college degree if they were to make the same wage as the janitor? Some have advantages others don't because of accident of birth. It isn't really what you make, it's how you spend that can make or break you. I think for the most part, poor people have poor ways applies.
The little guy can pull ahead thanks to capitalism. For example, the neighborhood I live has a section of fabulous houses that only a select few can afford. I recently learned that one is owned by a plumber. Now, how could a plumber afford a place like that without inheritance or some illegal activity? He saved money and bought small, inexpensive homes that he rehabbed into rental property. That decision paid off big. You should see his house. This is a very nice blue collar guy we are talking about that lives like the big shots because of some good decisions that he made in the past. He earned it rightfully.
07-29-02, 01:29 PM JohnGalt Money is earned, not redistributed.
07-29-02, 03:07 PM hippolips Voltare said;"Government is the art of taking money from one group of people and giving it to another". mad mad mad mad mad
07-30-02, 07:21 AM MrSensitive The only reason the rich have that money is because the Workers keep buying their products.
Of course, if they stop buying the products, then the Workers are out of a job....
Seems that Capitalism benefits everyone who participates. Workers produce and profit. Employers produce and profit. Owners produce and profit. Investors produce and profit. Everyone comes out a winner, provided they keep strengthening that circle with experience, knowledge, wisdom and ambition.
Problems seem to arise when outsiders (like politicians, theives and slackers) start dipping their grubby little hands into that nice, neat Capitalistic circle.
The rich will gladly give the workers their money back, provided the workers bring the merchandise and sales receipt to the customer service window.
Mr(chain of fools)Sensitive
09-12-02, 05:39 AM chanceygardner Perhaps you can pose the question a different way and consider if the earnings are commensurate with the value of the activity being performed.
For example: A family doctor earns more money than a trash-collector. Is that fair? A family doctor saves how many lives a year from his activities (most of the time he treats flu or other minor ailments)? A trash-collector on the other hand saves hundreds, maybe thousands of lives a year by keeping the streets clean and preventing the spread of infections & diseases...he is in the prevention business (not like the doctor who is in the treatment business) and not only saves lives directly, but also saves millions of dollars which would have to be spent by the medical profession in treating all of the other diseases that would arise if he did not do his job. Surely his job is much more valuable and should be rewarded as such...even though he doesn't need so much 'brain power' to perform it?
This holds true for the Corporate 'big-shots' too. Take WorldCom or some such company....what do you think those guys do all day that is worth millions of dollars as opposed to a middle-manager in the same company sweating his way up the ladder and working all the hours and generating profits directly through customer sales? You say the top-boss is taking higher risk? What risk when he gets a million bucks as salary if he does well and a million bucks in pay-off if he fails?
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
Posts: 384 | Location: Fairfax, VA | Registered: 06-03-02
I have absolutely no problem with rich people. Especially those who are self made and started from nothing. People who have experienced set-backs on the way up. Yet their persistance paid off.
Where I do have a problem with is this. Corporate greed. Cooking the books. Situations like Enron & World Com. Highly paid executives bailing out of their companies in golden parachutes and leaving the employees and stock holders holding the bag. And these people were paid well for their decision making ability to run their companies. Yet they mismanage and lead it into bankruptcy.
Perhaps you can pose the question a different way and consider if the earnings are commensurate with the value of the activity being performed.
For example: A family doctor earns more money than a trash-collector. Is that fair? A family doctor saves how many lives a year from his activities (most of the time he treats flu or other minor ailments)? A trash-collector on the other hand saves hundreds, maybe thousands of lives a year by keeping the streets clean and preventing the spread of infections & diseases...he is in the prevention business (not like the doctor who is in the treatment business) and not only saves lives directly, but also saves millions of dollars which would have to be spent by the medical profession in treating all of the other diseases that would arise if he did not do his job. Surely his job is much more valuable and should be rewarded as such...even though he doesn't need so much 'brain power' to perform it?
This holds true for the Corporate 'big-shots' too. Take WorldCom or some such company....what do you think those guys do all day that is worth millions of dollars as opposed to a middle-manager in the same company sweating his way up the ladder and working all the hours and generating profits directly through customer sales? You say the top-boss is taking higher risk? What risk when he gets a million bucks as salary if he does well and a million bucks in pay-off if he fails?
absolutely not. if you believe in capitalism, then you should also believe that those who are able to get rich do so, and those who don't, get to serve the rich. this is a fact, and it won't change until capitalism is vanquished.
as you may understand, the RICH DO pay the poor, in fact, they pay everyone. above 100,000, you are paying almost 50% tax on income in the U.S. this goes to welfare programs, other such things, and goes to generally make the world a better place for bums and everyone else.
of course, not all rich people get there fairly, but you can't use this notion in yoru argument.
