Why Not View "Super Wealthy" as "Super Greedy", not "Super Successful"

[fessie]

Since when did reading comprehension skills go to crap in GD? Neither Evil Captor nor I have advocated the utter destruction of capitalism. We’re saying the values under which it’s currently being practiced are shoddy.

You people act like the free market happens in a void. Bullspit. It’s the sum of transactions between people, which is part of why (most of) the rich keep getting richer, as Evil pointed out - they’ve got their hands on the controls. And I’m not saying we can or should regulate these people out of existence. Surely there’s room in the world for a range of views - and, yes, businessmen far more skilled at making money than I am have provided me employment on many occasions.

What I’m arguing for is a view that says enough is enough. That there’s a point where the accumulation of wealth is not admirable, but greedy. That employers have a responsibility to their employees because we do all exist together. I’m not even presuming to dictate exactly what those parameters are, it’s not up to me.

There was an interesting remark earlier about how the free market would be perfect if it weren’t for things like corruption. Okay. Why do you think there’s corruption? Because this involves human beings and we’re flawed - and we’re the system! It doesn’t exist without us!

And one of the best checks against corruption and greed is simple peer pressure. Stop admiring these bozos who exploit their workers and start shunning them. Athletes who negotiate for a bazillion bucks therefore crippling their team’s ability to recruit other players - they’re not enviable. They’re despicable.

It’s high time we reintroduced the idea of restraint into our culture.

[Shodan]

@fessie

Since when did reading comprehension skills go to crap in GD? Neither Evil Captor nor I have advocated the utter destruction of capitalism. We’re saying the values under which it’s currently being practiced are shoddy.

Well, AFAICT you are arguing two different positions.

You want an ethic based on social pressure. Evil Captor seems to be arguing that “soak the rich” ought to be public policy.

FWIW, I am perfectly comfortable with your position, so long as it does not translate into confiscatory taxes on income above a certain level. Mostly, I should confess, because I don’t really care what anyone else thinks of what I make in a year. So by all means, knock yourself out condemning me for greed. Just don’t expect it to have much effect. Unless you can convince my friends, family, church, and so forth, to start ragging on me for earning too much money.

@fessie

You people act like the free market happens in a void. Bullspit. It’s the sum of transactions between people, which is part of why (most of) the rich keep getting richer, as Evil pointed out - they’ve got their hands on the controls.

I think part of the problem is here. What you define as “having your hands on the controls” looks a lot like “being allowed to keep what you earn” from this side of the question.

I begin the discussion, in other words, by assuming that people have a right to keep what they earn. There is an unfortunate necessity to give up some of it, in the form of taxes, to fund the necessary functions of government. The first issue being that, as a conservative, I have a much more limited idea as to what is “necessary” for government to do. And income equity, aka “the government as Robin Hood”, is very definitely not necessary. It is none of your business how much I make, regardless of how much I make.

“This single mother has genuine need - how about some help?” is one thing.

“This single mother has genuine need, and by God you’re gonna help” is slightly different.

“This single mother and her needs are already covered to some reasonable degree, but you still have too much - gimme” is something else altogether.

Progressive taxation, in the sense of higher taxes on those who would miss the money less, is an idea with a great deal of appeal. I even agree with it - but only insofar as it done to fund the necessary functions of government. As an end in itself, or as the expression of the wish that “Shodan makes more than a receptionist - no fair! Let’s grab a chunk of his money and hand it out like candy” - not so much.

Rich people have money largely because they spend their money and their time efficiently. (Sam Stone made this point earlier in the thread.) Taking money away from the efficient, and giving it to the less efficient is something that can be justified under humanitarian grounds to a certain degree - but only to a certain degree. Confiscatory tax policy on the super-rich, as has been advocated by some Dopers, is too much like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@fessie

And one of the best checks against corruption and greed is simple peer pressure. Stop admiring these bozos who exploit their workers and start shunning them. Athletes who negotiate for a bazillion bucks therefore crippling their team’s ability to recruit other players - they’re not enviable. They’re despicable.

They are not despicable. You seem to picture this whole system as a kindergarten playground, or a junior Little League game where, if one team gets ahead by five runs, their side is out, just so the game stays even.

Although it’s been twisted, the “Wall Street” speech by Machael Douglas’ character Gordon Gekko captures some truths:

The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it’s forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind…

Virtually all of the technological advances throughout history have been motivated by greed. Certainly there are other motivations as well; no one questions that Salk wanted to help polio victims. But Salk would not have done his work without greed of some sort: be it for money, or public recognition, or the power that being a savior brought, or whatever.

Athletes strive to COMPETE. That hunger, that drive, makes them good athletes. Runners don’t slow down before they cross the finish line to make sure their competitors have a chance to feel good about the race. Nor should they show down at the negotiating table, because they have a skill that can make them money. What in heaven’s name would be the reason for a guy to say, “I know you’ll pay me ten million, but really, a man needs only a million, so you take that other nine and make sure the team’s other players get taken care of.”

That’s simply not a competitive spirit. And people do not succeed without competitive spirits.

[John_Mace]

@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?

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.

[XT]

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. In fact, while its true that the rich have gotten richer (or, more accurately, there are a lot more folks who we consider ‘rich’ in our society today than there were, say, 100 years ago), its also true that the ‘poor’ have gotten richer (from a standard of living perspective with reguards to how the ‘poor’ were in the past)…and that the ‘middle class’ has gotten richer (again, with reguards to the fact that there are a hell of a lot more in the ‘middle class’ than there was in the past).

So, by the creation of wealth, the formation of new companies, the capitalist system has not only brought up the super wealthy…its brought up everyone else as well. And it will continue to bring them up. We have regulations in place to keep the free market humming along nicely…yet there is ever the call for more. Lets strip out more wealth from the wealthy, lets put in more regulations. If a little works, a LOT will work so much better! Those rich guys don’t need 5 houses and 10 cars!! Thats not right when the poor only have a one room appartment, a single TV and only one beat up old car! We should look down on the rich. No problem, knock yourself out. We should soak the rich to make them stop spending their money the way they want…and redistribute that wealth back to those in ‘need’. There I have a problem.

The rich…everyone really…has the right to dispose of THEIR wealth as they see fit after fulfilling their duty and paying the taxes needed by society. Its THEIR money to do with as THEY want. So what if the gap between the ‘rich’ and the ‘poor’ has widened? If the everyone else is getting richer as well, if the standard of living has improved for the majority, what exactly is the problem? And I think you’d be hard pressed to look at today (yes, even today, as ‘bad’ as the economy is) and at the past and claim that the majority of people are a hell of a lot better off today, with more ‘wealth’ per person available across the board than any other time in history.

As another poster put it, attempting to legislate MORE taxes on the super wealthy to punish them for making more wealth (which seems to be the point of several posters in this thread, though a few claim this isn’t so) than other people sounds a hell of a lot like wanting to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

-XT

[msmith537]

@fessie

There was an interesting remark earlier about how the free market would be perfect if it weren’t for things like corruption. Okay. Why do you think there’s corruption? Because this involves human beings and we’re flawed - and we’re the system! It doesn’t exist without us!

By that logic, it would be impossible to create any economic system that is fair because they are all created by humans.

[Steve_MB]

@Evil Captor

Here’s an interesting concept to try out: When one group has an unequal power relationship with another, the one that has the most power is the one that doesn’t want to talk about the nature of the relationship.

Indeed. For example, the ruling elite of the old Soviet Empire spewed a lot of nonsense about their actions being taken “in the name of the workers”.

[Steve_MB]

@MrFantsyPants

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?

Ever hear of something called “The Prisoners’ Dilemma”?

[msmith537]

@Steve MB

Indeed. For example, the ruling elite of the old Soviet Empire spewed a lot of nonsense about their actions being taken “in the name of the workers”.

Don’t bother. He doesn’t grasp that in a market economy there are many employers all competing against each other. They will “figure out” that they can all pay their workers peanuts until one of the companies figures out that by paying a little more for the best and brightest workers they can maintain an advantage. If several employers figure this out, they will bid up salaries until it is no longer advantageous for them to do so.

Baiscally how the process works in real life is companies look at local demographics data to determine the going wage for a particular position. This is basically their starting point while interviewing. If they find that their hiring picks are not accepting offers then they can either try to wait out the market or increase their offers.

[fessie]

Those are some interesting twists and points.

No, I wouldn’t want to remove the incentive for people to compete and excel. Or for businesses to become more efficient. And handing out rewards regardless of merit (like the tropies and ribbons they give to kids these days) - also despicable. I believe in the meritocracy.

But you’re assuming that we’re all negotiating on a level playing field, with just as much to win or lose, and a relatively equal ability to make demands. And there’s no way that’s true.

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.

Arguments about the middle-class lifestyle in this country are more than I have time for right now, although those are interesting and worthwhile points.

[Hyperelastic]

@x-ray vision

Do you really think the ancients knew where to draw the line? Are you the one saying we should have a line drawn? And what do we do when one makes too much money?

Like the posters I was responding to, you’re dragging in a whole bunch of other questions and issues that are never going to get answered. I’ll repeat what I said earlier, which is simply that there is such a thing as gluttony, and it’s bad and ought to be viewed as bad. It’s fascinating how the same people who demand absolute enforcement of property rights, contracts, and laws against stealing suddenly get all mushy when you talk about gluttony. Sloth may have been one of the seven deadly sins, but so was gluttony.

[Shodan]

@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.

I don’t follow - what does the above anecdote have to do with greed?

I always use coupons when I shop for groceries. I am thus paying less than I might. Am I being greedy? Would I be greedy if I earned fifty million dollars a year?

By common economic defintion, your architect boss was spending his money more efficiently than someone who paid full price would be doing. He got his light bulb, and had some amount left over from his $12. Someone who paid full price would get the same light bulb, but have less money left over.

I think earlier you condemned rich people for spending more than they needed on cars or houses or something. (My apologies if it was someone else). Now the architect is greedy because he did NOT spend more than he needed to on light bulbs. Would it make a difference if the light bulb were for his house?

Or else people are greedy if they don’t pay their employees more than they need to. What if they pay their employees to build a house that they don’t need? Is that different?

I don’t follow your argument.

Regards,
Shodan

[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.

[Shodan]

@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.

Coupons don’t make any difference.

I, like your architect friend, seek ways to pay less than I have to. Your statement that “the store had not made the decision to lower the price” is wrong - they did, and they sold the light bulb to him for less than list price. It is no different than when I try to bargain the car saleman down from sticker price on a car.

How is it “greedy” to try for the lowest price you can manage? How is dickering “rude”? Do you automatically throw in an extra $2 when you pay for gasoline? Why not? Isn’t it rude and greedy for you to pay less than you could afford? Shouldn’t we all be shunning and shaming you because you leave a store with money still left in your pocket?

I’m still not getting you.

Regards,
Shodan

[fessie]

So, Shodan, how are you on giving those discounts? Do you charge different prices to each of your customers? Do you bargain at the grocery store, refusing to pay full price for that carton of eggs? I’d hate to be behind you in line.

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.

[John_Mace]

@Steve MB

Ever hear of something called “The Prisoners’ Dilemma”?

Huh? How does the Prisoner’s Dilema have anything to do with that? I’d say the proper repsonse is that people should expect to have to create their own jobs, no necessarily have them PROVIDED by someone else. Jobs aren’t like some natural resource that you have no control over. People CREATE jobs, and if you someone doesn’t create one for you, then you damn well better create one for yourself. (This may not hold in dictarorial or highly corrupt countries where there is no distinction between government and business. But that doesn’t apply to the US or any western-style democracy.)

No one owes anyone a job. Period.

[x-ray_vision]

Originally posted by 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.

Or those of us who are good at bargaining make the rich not so rich. Doesn’t that make you happy?

Would I be helping make things better if I pay full price at a used car dealership and not bother negotiating?

[John_Mace]

@fessie

So, Shodan, how are you on giving those discounts? Do you charge different prices to each of your customers? Do you bargain at the grocery store, refusing to pay full price for that carton of eggs? I’d hate to be behind you in line.

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.

I think you are missing the point. If you don’t want to bargain, that’s your choice. But there is nothing inherently “right” about any price other than if the buyer and seller agree on it. We bargain for cars, we bargain for houses, but for some reason most people don’t bargain at the store. The onwer didn’t have to give a discount. He just calculated that he’d be better off giving it to your boss. Maybe he thought he wouldn’t get the business if he didn’t, maybe he thought he’d get more business in the future if he did, or maybe he just didn’t have the balls to say “no”. Either way, he made a free choice. That’s what the “free” in free market means.

[Shodan]

@fessie

So, Shodan, how are you on giving those discounts? Do you charge different prices to each of your customers?

I’m not involved directly in sales. But I have been known to dicker, as I mentioned.

But again, I am not sure of your point. Prices change all the time, with volume discounts, sales, unloading stuff you don’t need just to save the storage fees, etc. Are these examples of greed? Or are the customers who take advantage of these sales greedy?

@fessie

Do you bargain at the grocery store, refusing to pay full price for that carton of eggs? I’d hate to be behind you in line.

Well, I use coupons, as I mentioned. Which is no different in principle.

@fessie

When people dicker, then the base price just goes up so that there’s a better point from which to bargain.

Not as far as I can tell. Why didn’t the guy in line behind you when your architect boss bought the light bulb ask for the same discount? He now knew what price the store was offering light bulbs at.

@fessie

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.

By shopping at sales, and taking advantage of discounts? You have a rather extensive definition of “greedy”.

I suppose you are correct, in a way - when I use my grocery coupons, the store needs to make up the reduced profit in some way. Generally, they are often hoping to draw me in using a “loss leader”. Occasionally, it works, but not usually.

Tell me - when the local ShopWay has a two-for-one sale, do you insist on paying full price? Or is it OK for some people to take advantage of the poor helpless business man, but not others?

Regards,
Shodan

[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.

However, I do want to say I’ve enjoyed the education received here; although my core opinion isn’t really any different, you’ve all forced me to consider issues that never occurred to me, and I appreciate it. It’s fun to be challenged and persuaded to refine my point of view.