# Why Not View "Super Wealthy" as "Super Greedy", not "Super Successful" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2005, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824 "2005-01-09T02:42:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/141 "2005-01-11T20:42:27Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > I’ll give you just a micro example. My wealthy employer took me on an errand with him to purchase a special kind of light bulb. It turned out that I knew the guy running the store, he’d owned a tiny comic book store my Hubby used to frequent. That business had failed and he’d moved on. As we started chatting and my boss realized this, he asked this guy for a discount on his $12 lightbulb. “Say, can you give a deal to a poor old architect?” he asks. So my acquaintance looks at me and agrees to take less than the amount typically charged. THAT is why that old bastard was wealthy. Has NOTHING to do with efficiency and EVERYTHING to do with greed. You left you the part where he pulled a gun and put it to your head, and told the store owner, “Gimme the discount, or I waste the 'ho!” Was he rude? Possibly. I think asking for a discount in that circumstance intruded on the social aspect of the meeting. But both you and the store owner had choices. You could have immediately piped up and said, “Oh, please don’t feel obligated to give discounts on my account; I’d feel terribly guilty.” The store owner could have said, “I’m sorry, sir, but the prices listed are what we charge.” Instead, the crafty architect uses a bit of social awkwardness to get a discount. Rude? Perhaps. But he has every right to do that, just as the store owner has every right to refuse. The architect, if he conducts all his affairs like that, may end up a richly deserving social pariah; his choice, not yours. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/142 "2005-01-11T20:46:55Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > I think most people also recognize that many of the super rich are some of the biggest philanthropists out there. For every miserly old billionaire who made his money from the exploitation of others, there are many who use their money make the world a better place. Bill Gates is the world’s richest man, but he also donates staggerly large amounts of money to plenty of people who need it. People like George Soros, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer also provide much of the funding that allows colleges, universities, research groups, playhouses, museums, and galleries to operate. It seems to me like most people see that the current crop of super rich people have sincerely tried to use their money for good and should not be the object of scorn. The current crop of the superwealthy donates, in terms of percentage of wealth acquired, a miniscule fraction of their wealth to charity, compared to the charitable giving of the “robber barons” of the early 1900s. Bill Gates may seem to give a lot of money to charity, but compared to Rockefeller, Carnegie, Lilly, he’s a skinflint. And Gates is one of the better ones in this regard. Those people gave because they felt it was their duty. Gates gives because it gives him public relations opportunities. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/143 "2005-01-11T20:49:11Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > Well, I just see it differently. I think my former boss played the “nice” equity (which really wasn’t even his to play). My acquaintaince placed a higher value on nice than on money, and got took for it. You really believe all transactions are merely a matter of goods sold? I think there’s usually more to it. And the billions of dollars spent on marketing agree with me. If your acquaintance placed more value on being nice than getting money, then why did he get taken? He got the opportunity to me be nice, which you say is more a value to him than getting money. The fact that your boss may not have appreciated the niceness, doesn’t make the gesture any less nice. If your acquaintance doesn’t like being taken advantage of, then he’s got to sharpen his skills a bit. If, on the other hand, he really doesn’t care about that then what’s the problem? People do things for all types of reasons or no reason at all. The key factor that’s important is that both parties are free to accept the deal or not. I had an acquaintance once who owned a small retail business and had what I thought was the perfect reply when people tried to hit him up for a bro’ deal. He used to say “I don’t expect to get business from my enemies, so if I give discounts to all my friends, I’ll never make any money.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/144 "2005-01-11T20:49:46Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > When people dicker, then the base price just goes up so that there’s a better point from which to bargain. Isn’t that how cars are? So the point is, those few of you who are good at bargaining cost the rest of us more. And then you congratulate yourselves on your financial savvy & superior wealth-building, when the truth is the rest of us just want to get home and make dinner. Yes. The people that pay list price on cars make it possible - or easier - for me to haggle when I buy I car. And you know what? GOOD. I’m happy that you place a higher value on just getting it over with and getting home to make dinner. That particular dinner may cost you $3,000, mind you, when you consider that haggling on the price of a car may save you that much in front and back-end F&I costs. And again? Why shouldn’t I bargain? No one’s stopping you from bargaining too. If you dislike it, if you find it unseemly, then you pay more. If you can do it, then you pay less. Just like the rest of things in life. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/145 "2005-01-11T20:56:20Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > The current crop of the superwealthy donates, in terms of percentage of wealth acquired, a miniscule fraction of their wealth to charity, compared to the charitable giving of the “robber barons” of the early 1900s. Bill Gates may seem to give a lot of money to charity, but compared to Rockefeller, Carnegie, Lilly, he’s a skinflint. And Gates is one of the better ones in this regard. Those people gave because they felt it was their duty. Gates gives because it gives him public relations opportunities. Do you have a cite for this claim that todays super rich donate a lesser percentage of their wealth than those of the past? I’m not sure if thats true or not, but I’d like to see a cite for it if you have one. Since there are more rich now, over all is more donated to charities (modified for the current value of the dollar with reguards to dollar value in the past) today than in the past? My guess is that a hell of a lot more is donated today by private citizens than in the past…which again goes along with the fact that there are more rich today than ever before. And the rest of us are doing pretty good too compared to that golden past. As for Gates, how do you know he gives because its a public relations opportunity instead of the fact he really wants too? Is that a guess on your part or do you actually know this? -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/146 "2005-01-11T20:59:39Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > The current crop of the superwealthy donates, in terms of percentage of wealth acquired, a miniscule fraction of their wealth to charity, compared to the charitable giving of the “robber barons” of the early 1900s. Bill Gates may seem to give a lot of money to charity, but compared to Rockefeller, Carnegie, Lilly, he’s a skinflint. And Gates is one of the better ones in this regard. Those people gave because they felt it was their duty. Gates gives because it gives him public relations opportunities. If this is true, why do you suppose things changed? One of the biggest differences between the robber baron days and now is the level of taxation on income (none then vs a lot now). Wealthy people today are apt to think-- hey, the government takes so much from me in taxes, I don’t have an obligation beyond that. The other difference, directly related, is the level of government social programs available for poor people (none then vs a lot now). Coincidence? Maybe. Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but my explanation seems plausible. Any suggestions for a better explanation? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/147 "2005-01-11T21:52:43Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > You (speaking generically) maintain that the rich get richer because they’re more efficient with their money. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Maybe sometimes, maybe often, maybe it’s the way you are — but it’s by no means universal. > > Personally I’ve worked for a lot of people in a lot of places, and I’ve seen and known rich people who kept their wealth because they were stingy, bullies, manipulative, and exploitive. People around them had less money than they did because they were too nice, busy, distracted, naive, or stupid to fight about it. Simple as that. > > I’ll give you just a micro example. My wealthy employer took me on an errand with him to purchase a special kind of light bulb. It turned out that I knew the guy running the store, he’d owned a tiny comic book store my Hubby used to frequent. That business had failed and he’d moved on. As we started chatting and my boss realized this, he asked this guy for a discount on his $12 lightbulb. “Say, can you give a deal to a poor old architect?” he asks. So my acquaintance looks at me and agrees to take less than the amount typically charged. THAT is why that old bastard was wealthy. Has NOTHING to do with efficiency and EVERYTHING to do with greed. You think he’s wealthy because he saves a few bucks on lightbulbs? It’s already been mentioned but there is not set price for anything, other than you need to exceed your expenses. Price is simply a way of transmitting information about the relative value of a good or service. Am I a greedy asshole because I was able to negotiate $200 off the rent for my Manhattan appartment? Am I more or less of an asshole because I might do engage in a little flirtatious banter a little on the phone with the female property manager? Or cry poverty a little? We are simply two parties engaged in a business transaction. I want to pay as little as possible. It’s worth it for them to knock of a couple hundred bucks off the rent to keep a good tenent who doesn’t break stuff, pays his rent (mostly) on time and is generally pleasent to deal with. Sorry, but I don’t think you can begrudge those of us who take a little extra time and effort to save a few bucks and make sure we get the service we expect. > [@fessie](#): > > Well, I just see it differently. I think my former boss played the “nice” equity (which really wasn’t even his to play). My acquaintaince placed a higher value on nice than on money, and got took for it. You really believe all transactions are merely a matter of goods sold? I think there’s usually more to it. And the billions of dollars spent on marketing agree with me. That is correct. There are other factors besides money at work. Level of service, time, effort, other intangibles. These are all choices people make when purchasing something and this information is incorporated into the price. Take airplane tickets. For some people, cost is most important. They will fly a crappy airline and make 3 stopovers in order to get the cheapest fair. Other people prefer comfort and are able to spend more to fly non-stop first class. Most settle on a mix. Your friend basically was willing to give a rebate in exchange for a customer to be friendlier and there’s nothing wrong with that. In fact, it’s part of the reason companies give different levels of service to different types of customers. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/148 "2005-01-12T00:20:08Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > My argument, **Shodan** , is that the architect took advantage of the situation. There was no coupon involved, the store had not made the decision to lower the price; he forced the issue, because he saw the opportunity. He exploited my acquaintanceship. It was rude and greedy. Or he always acted that way, but this time you witnessed it firsthand, and you knowing the salesman may have nothing to do with it in the firstplace. That too is a possibility. ---
**Author:** ![Grits\_and\_Hard\_Toast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Grits\_and\_Hard\_Toast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grits_and_Hard_Toast)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/149 "2005-01-12T01:14:06Z")
[QUOTE=BabaBooey] Grits, I’m not certain but I think you’re off on your half and half observation. Seems to me it’s mostly Evil and fessie contributing many posts in favor of change and many others with fewer posts favoring the current system. I agree Baba, when I started that reply earlier in the day the responses were more equal on each side, by the time I posted it more of one side had contributed. Seems Fessie’s question is of interest to that side more than the other. Fessie says,“I’ll give you just a micro example. My wealthy employer took me on an errand with him to purchase a special kind of light bulb. It turned out that I knew the guy running the store, he’d owned a tiny comic book store my Hubby used to frequent. That business had failed and he’d moved on. As we started chatting and my boss realized this, he asked this guy for a discount on his $12 lightbulb. “Say, can you give a deal to a poor old architect?” he asks. So my acquaintance looks at me and agrees to take less than the amount typically charged. THAT is why that old bastard was wealthy. Has NOTHING to do with efficiency and EVERYTHING to do with greed.” When I read this, I don’t see this is an example of greed, I see this as a possible win-win situation for both sides. I would have liked to have seen the store owner reply," OK, I will sell you this light bulb for 8 bucks today, but I do that with the hopes that you will come to me in the future with your business, and that you will send some of the contractors you work with my way as well." Then Mr. Architect says, “Great, that is what I was hoping you would do. I really like these special lightbulbs but have a hard time finding them, I would like to use them in the new subdivision I am designing, think we can cut a deal if I order a bunch?” “You bet, and I also have a great supplier of new fangled widgets, that would be perfect for your new subdivsion. Here is my card, give me a call about how many lightbulbs you want, and here, take a widget and check it out. I can make you a nice deal on those as well.” I have admired the wheeler and dealer bosses I have worked for in the past. I never thought them greedy, but rather clever. The store owner was free to say “No, the price printed is the price you have to pay.” At that point your boss probably would have bought it, since he made the special trip already, but he wouldn’t be back again. By getting a couple of dollars price break, your boss is now more inclined to do more business there, and everyone could benefit. If at any point the store owner felt he was being taken advantage of, he could be honest and say, “I have made my best offer, if you can beat it, guess you’ll go somewhere else, but I have a bottom line to think about too.” I just don’t think the wealthy are fundamentally greedy or gluttonous. There are some that are, but they are a small minority. And until I have evidence to prove the contrary, I am going to assume a given wealthy person is basically a good person who just happens to be skilled in acquiring wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Grits\_and\_Hard\_Toast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Grits\_and\_Hard\_Toast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grits_and_Hard_Toast)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/150 "2005-01-12T02:01:04Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > So, John, you’re an employer. You hire someone. You pay them shit. They live in their car because your measly wages won’t buy them an apartment. They go to the local food bank for food. When they get sick, they go to work anyway, because you keep them on just below full time so you won’t have to pay health insurance. If they get really sick or seriously injured, their only chance at health care is to find an emergency room that takes indigents. > > You’re cool with that, eh? Makes you feel all good inside? I see this situation entirely different. I see a guy living in car who needs to make some changes and improve his circumstances. Maybe he needs to find a couple of roommates to split the rent on a cheap apartment. Maybe he needs to get a part time job delivering newspapers early in the morning before his other job starts to make some extra cash. Maybe he could moonlight as a bartender a couple of nights a week, if he is good, just the tips alone will go along way to feed himself. Maybe he needs to take some computer classes, learn some kind of skill so he would be employable to a company that offered insurance. Maybe he needs to sell his car, take the bus, and use the money from the car and insurance/maintence/gas savings to get some type of business of his own started. Maybe he could say to John, I really like working here, but I’m not making ends meet on this wage. What can I do to move up to the next level here? And if the guy was a good worker and showed potential, John might want to keep him and could suggest the skills the guy could work on to move up the ladder. It would be to John’s benefit to promote from within. Save on recruitment and hiring expenses, and John would get to feel good he was helping another person reach their full potential. If the guy was just a coaster, John could and should just let the guy go. If the guy is good, and John just doesn’t see it, or just doesn’t have anything else for him, then perhaps a patron at the bar the guy is moonlighting at will see how good the guy is and offer him a job. And those aren’t just some pie in the sky things I made up so John doesn’t have to feel guilty that one of his employees lives a car. These all examples of what people I know have done when the needed to get ahead. If someone in our system wants to get ahead, there are so many ways he can, if he will just work at it. I have seen it too many times, in fact most everyone I know started at the bottom, had a rough time making ends meet, but then found ways to improve their situations. I bet I could start a thread here, “Tell about how rough you had it starting out.” " Tell us about the sacrifices you had to make along the way." I could tell you about having to live in a trailer with 3 cokeheads during a period when I was really struggling. I worked like hell to be able to get out of that trailer. They were content to just coast. If they are still alive, I bet they still live in that trailer, or worse. I chose to make sacrifices to improve my life, they didn’t. So they shouldn’t expect me fork over results of my hard work just becuase they would like to have what I have now. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/151 "2005-01-12T02:06:46Z")
Those are some fair questions and observations. Perhaps I should’ve clarified that the light bulb in question was for the architect’s slide projector. Not exactly a construction issue, nor a product one buys more than once every few years. **Bricker** that was funny; a “'ho” is exactly what I felt like in that moment. However, to the architect’s credit, I remembered later in the day (all this happened around 10 years ago) that while working for this particular firm I received some nice bonuses, around 10% of my salary. They had a policy of paying out the profits to all of the employees at year’s end, rather than paying additional taxes on them (or simply keeping them for themselves). Of course, as their Marketing Coordinator, I played a key role in landing them a contract for a $7m building while working there, so it could be argued I’d earned it. I’ll have to give more consideration to my views on wealth and greed. It’s the relationship between tangible and intangible values that I find irksome. And I don’t think the marketplace moves as freely as you’d all like to portray - clearly you’re speaking from the Marketing end; people in Operations just don’t see it the way you do (at least, not the ones I’ve known). But there have been compelling arguments about the pursuit of wealth and its benefits. Fascinating and illuminating. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/152 "2005-01-12T03:23:23Z")
As other have noted, I’ll just agree that you’re absolutely free to condemn anyone you like for any reason you like, and you can write books (or message board posts) condeming them, and give speeches and buy billboard space, etc. It’s when you suggest that maybe the behaviour you find so repulsive should be outlawed that you’ll face resistance. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/153 "2005-01-12T05:05:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Bill Gates may seem to give a lot of money to charity, but compared to Rockefeller, Carnegie, Lilly, he’s a skinflint. This year Bill Gates gave 3 billion dollars to charity, the largest single gift in the history of philanthropy. According to [this article](http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910401.htm), philanthropy from the rich is greater now than it ever has been. The top 50 have collectively given 65 billion dollars. The article says that from now until 2041 total charitable giving will be six _trillion_ dollars. Seriously, you should read that article. It might help you realize that the Rich are not Evil Archvillains. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/154 "2005-01-12T15:25:05Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Huh? How does the [Prisoner’s Dilema](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma) have anything to do with that? I thought that it was obvious. This comment was in response to the hypothetical situation: > [@](#): > > And what if there are no other jobs? What if the employers have figured out that if they all pay peanuts, then the workers will have nowhere else to go, and they can happily screw them over as much as they like? The reason that this hypothetical situation can’t arise on a large scale in the real world is that it depends on unanimous cooperation in a situation where there is a strong incentive to defect (i.e. if one employer breaks the deal and pays more, he’ll have his pick of the available workers) – a classic examples of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/155 "2005-01-12T16:13:31Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > I thought that it was obvious. This comment was in response to the hypothetical situation: > > The reason that this hypothetical situation can’t arise on a large scale in the real world is that it depends on unanimous cooperation in a situation where there is a strong incentive to defect (i.e. if one employer breaks the deal and pays more, he’ll have his pick of the available workers) – a classic examples of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. You’re assuming a perfect flow of information among workers about wages. Not something employers typically encourage. (That is, if the majority of workers don’t KNOW that some employers pay high wages for very skilled workers, then they can still be had for the cheap rates … including many of the skilled workers. A quick view of various employment boards should demonstrate that many employers refuse to advertise the salaries they are willing to pay. Wonder why that is?) ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/156 "2005-01-12T16:31:30Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > A market where a few wealthy corrupt and control the system is by definition not a free market. And I never said their should be no restrictions. > > You are right of course – free markets as such do not exist. The wealthy ALWAYS game the system as fast as they can. We are really only dickering over HOW the system should be gamed. It is my belief that the default of gaming the system as little as humanly possible, favored generally by libertarians and free market fanatics, invariably works to the advantage of the wealthy, since if you do not actively prevent them from gaming the system in their favor, they will do so. Plus, I think when the wealthy succeed in gaming the system, it hurts the economy in the long run, stifling innovation and effort by the middle and lower classes because the wealthy have … gamed the system. This works for ANY kind of economy, and the free market economy is just as subject to it as any other. The fact that so many economists are blind to this is quite distressing, but hardly surprising, as guess who pays their salaries? > > > [@](#): > > > > Prove to me that this is happening now in the US. How is the distribution of wealth compare to other times in history? And is this happening because the wealthy are corrupting the system or because people spend the majority of their income on crap to entertain themselves instead of wealth-building assets? [The Master has spoken on this topic.](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031219.html) His reply is nuanced as usual, but we are definitely moving in the direction of the wealthy controlling more and more of our economy. I don’t see how you can doubt that honestly. > [@](#): > > I think you are simplifying things a little. Henry Ford, unlike his peers, felt that the automobile should be available to all, not just the wealthy. He developed processes and procedures that REDUCED THE UNIT COST of the automobile. > > [http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/ford3.html](http://www.time.com/time/time100/builder/profile/ford3.html) > "The critics were too stupid to comprehend that because Ford had lowered his costs per car, the higher wages didn’t matter — except for making it feasible for more people to buy cars. " Yes, Henry Ford understood that if his workers were making enough money to buy his cars, he could sell more … a LOT more … cars. So he raised their wages. He understood that raising the wealth of the workers in an economy and allowing them to buy things meant greater wealth for him. Most wealthy people are too stupid to understand the implications of this point. Granted, inflation tends to pick up when wages are raised, but when you move too far in the opposite direction – when people’s control of wealth slips enough that they cant’ afford to buy things … rich people lose money. What we need is a good balance, unfortunately, the innate greed of the rich constantly fights against that balance, and with much greater power than any other group, because economic power easily translates into political power. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/157 "2005-01-12T16:54:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You want an ethic based on social pressure. **Evil Captor** seems to be arguing that “soak the rich” ought to be public policy. Strawman. Argument by slogan. Piffle, in short. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/158 "2005-01-12T17:01:53Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Again in this thread I see folks thinking that the system is a zero sum game. If someone gets all the pie there won’t be any pie for the rest of us. The super wealthy can ‘game’ the system to get more wealth, making it so that there is less wealth for the rest of us poor shlubs. > > They CLAIM they don’t think of it that way, but their statements contradict their claim. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer is an appeal to view the system as a zero sum game. Here’s where you are screwing up. I am saying that when the rich get too of a share of the wealth, they wind up STEPPING ON THEIR OWN DICKS and making EVERYBODY poorer because they tend to stifle the economic innovation that comes from the middle class. I view the middle class as the great creator of wealth in society, not the rich. The rich tend to be a kleptocracy in the making, in every society. They HAMPER wealth creation. The rich will use their wealth and power to make themselves rich no matter what, sometimes by making everyone richer but mostly by the easy cheap steps of just gaming the system to give themselves more money – as CEOS have done of late. We should game the system to give the middle class folks enough money and freedom to step up there and innovate. That’s how the economy really grows. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/159 "2005-01-12T17:08:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > It depends. It’s hard to imagine how his lifestyle could be condusive to doing a good job. But, if I was paying him the going rate, I doubt there would be anything I could do. Besides, you are missing my point. I gave the guy a job. Would it have been better if I didn’t? And why is it MY responsibility, as opposed to yours, to make sure the guy can buy a house? The assertion being made is that an employer takes on an **extra moral burden** that no one else has because that employer gave the guy a job. Why is that? Why does he lose that burden if just decides to shut down the factory and the guy ends up unemployed, or if he never hires the guy in the first place? > > Now, I think it’s bad business practices to have your employees so worried about day-to-day living that they can’t do their jobs. But that is a different matter entirely. Yes, you gave the guy a job, but I think it’s implicit that you live in a society where there are a lot of guys like him who need jobs, and that you can get away with paying him shit. You need to hire somebody, it just happens to be him, there’s no real “goodness” to be had for giving somebody something you have too much of (money) to do something that you need done (work). That said, if you could get him into an apartment and living on food he buys himself by paying him, say, 30 percent above market … and it makes not a bit of difference to you, you’re ROLLING in money … would you? Wouldn’t it feel better to have employees who weren’t living in cars or cardboard boxes or whatever? I gotta tell you, I’d feel like a real SHIT if I paid the going rate, knowing my employees were living on the street, when I could easily do better. I’d feel like a greedy asshole, I would. ---
**Author:** ![YoudNeverGuess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a587f6/32.png) [@YoudNeverGuess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoudNeverGuess)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824/160 "2005-01-12T17:08:56Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Humanity falls into a bell curve of talent, industriousness, and intelligence. If you divided up all the money in the U.S. tomorrow so that everyone had an equal amount, do you know what would happen? In 20 years, the same people who have the wealth now would have it again… > > …But more importantly, by continually moving resources and power from the smartest and hardest working to the masses, you will cripple the economy. Soon, everyone may be equal - equally poor. I see your point but you are on dangerous, dangerous ground here. I’m not wealthy, I’m intelligent and talented sure but not in an area that’s ever likely to make me huge amounts of money plus my biggest failing is that I’m not a very hard worker. I have other priorities. This doesn’t matter to me. I only have one life and I’m going to enjoy it. I don’t care that others are super-wealthy. I might be a little envious of it occasionally but over all I don’t give a damn. What I do give a damn about is the assumption that all wealthy people ‘deserve’ their wealth because the flip side of this is that all poor people ‘deserve’ their poverty. It _is_ assigning monetary ‘worth’ to human beings which is abhorrent to me. By this logic we _should_ be letting the poor starve in the streets or in Africa or wherever because they made their beds through their own ineptitude didn’t they? They could all be rich if they had the gumption. Well you can’t just turn this ‘gumption’ on. Being hard-working is a quality that people are lucky to be born with. It’s a talent like any other and while people certainly can have some control over their financial success and should be allowed to exploit their natural talents and reap the rewards I don’t agree that they should be as revered as they often are. Social responsibility is also important and is an acknowledgement of the luck of great wealth. If there is too great a gap between rich and poor than things are unbalanced and it is a dangerous situation for a civilisation. Still though, capitalism seems to be the most natural economic system but it can’t be safely or fairly unbridled. It should be tempered with some kind of social democracy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-view-super-wealthy-as-super-greedy-not-super-successful/283824.md?page=9)