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

Great Debates
141

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.

142

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.

143

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.”

144

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.

145

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

146

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?

147

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.

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.

148

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.

149

[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.

150

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.

151

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.

152

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.

153

This year Bill Gates gave 3 billion dollars to charity, the largest single gift in the history of philanthropy.

According to this article, 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.

154

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.

155

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?)

156

The Master has spoken on this topic. 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.

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.

157

Strawman. Argument by slogan. Piffle, in short.

158

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.

159

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.

160

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.