Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This raises an interesting point about corporate wealth and the principle of redistribution. I think it's a natural human tendency to see the enormous profits that some companies generate, or to look at a CEO's salary (plus bonuses!) and think, "Geez, that amount of wealth is obscene! They should spread it around a little bit." I used to get upset just thinking about the piles of money "these arrogant rich jerks" must have laying around their enormous houses.
But recently I've been looking at such questions a bit differently. Is income inequality really as important as it's made out to be ? Some CEOs make more in a few hours than I'll ever see in my lifetime, but does that mean they're ethically obligated to give some of their wealth to me, or to share it with their employees?
I'm happy that I'm at a point in my life where I can afford to drive a car, pay a mortgage, and eat healthy food. I work hard, but I'm also blessed with some free time to be with my family and friends, and I no longer live paycheck to paycheck. Yet, although I am only barely middle class, a destitute person could consider me "rich".
You could say it would be "nice" of me to give a dollar to everyone who asks me (after all, what's a dollar to a rich guy like me?), but is there a limit? Is it an ethical imperative for me to give as much as I can to impoverished strangers --- or for employers to pay as much as they possibly can to their employees?
Isn't it possible that at least some of the criticism of the wealthy is fed by envy and frustration (or ideologies that feed on these natural tendencies)?
Income inequality is an expected consequence of the imbalanced system we currently have. It is promoted like all the other divisive memes. People can choose to stop at the topical or to explore the deeper.
Stating that someone makes a strong case in favor of a requested outcome is not the same thing as requesting it yourself.
ah... but there is a difference between stating that the person in the article makes a strong case for him/herself....and stating that EVERYONE should get a raise
the FACT is that people are payed what they negotiated with the employer
if you think YOU (an individual) are worth more (based on performance and skill) that is one thing for the individual to NEGOTIATE it is entirely a different thing for some poster to demand everyone get a raise based on zero evidence of performance or skill
Workingclasshero, your username must have been made in irony.
nope I am a workingclasshero( a mechanic(actually a maintenance supervisor now...but still a mechanic with over 40 years experience))...and have no problem with people being paid based on skill and performance.....
unlike thieving realtors, who get paid a commission for how much they can steal/raise a value of a residence, based on what, if it has a granite countertop
nope I am a workingclasshero( a mechanic(actually a maintenance supervisor now...but still a mechanic with over 40 years experience))...and have no problem with people being paid based on skill and performance.....
unlike thieving realtors, who get paid a commission for how much they can steal/raise a value of a residence, based on what, if it has a granite countertop
Lol, you mad? Funny how you don't dare criticize any in the financial sector. It is easier for an individual to act morally and ethically in their business dealings than entire industries with a history of collusion and corruption.
Lol, you mad? Funny how you don't dare criticize any in the financial sector. It is easier for an individual to act morally and ethically in their business dealings than entire industries with a history of collusion and corruption.
and meanwhile realtors were knee deep into the housing bust
come on admit it
realtors don't make or produce anything
a builder can build a house for 80k...yet you have no problem making a profit for him (including your 5% commission ) and turning aaround and selling that same 80k(cost) house for 500k
you have no problem telling a seller, "no I think you can get more than 300k, you just updated your kitchen for 25k, and put granite counter tops in..sell it for 400k"....meanwhile the extra 100k in selling price is an extra 5k in your pocket (based on the average 5% commission)
Lol, you mad? Funny how you don't dare criticize any in the financial sector. It is easier for an individual to act morally and ethically in their business dealings than entire industries with a history of collusion and corruption.
uhm...what is the purpose of the FINANCIAL sector....or any sector for that matter......to make money
until we switch to communism(true communism) where there is no such thing as money, it will ALWAYS be that way
ah... but there is a difference between stating that the person in the article makes a strong case for him/herself....and stating that EVERYONE should get a raise
the FACT is that people are payed what they negotiated with the employer
if you think YOU (an individual) are worth more (based on performance and skill) that is one thing for the individual to NEGOTIATE it is entirely a different thing for some poster to demand everyone get a raise based on zero evidence of performance or skill
Is that what he is doing? I don't read it that way. Seems to be saying that it looks like they COULD afford to pay better with no sweat. (in a nut shell)
I think the employee argues a strong case-the cost of a $10,000 raise to every employee is pocket change to this Corporation-that has been seeing record profits. If the employees do not contribute to the well-being and success of a company then why would they even be hired? Employees ARE the Company and should see a share in it's success!
"With the increasing focus on income inequality in the United States. Wells Fargo has an opportunity to be at the forefront of helping to reduce this by setting the bar, leading by example, and showing the other large corporations that it is very possible to maintain a profitable company that not only looks out for its consumers and shareholders, but its employees as well.
This year Wells Fargo in its second quarter alone had a net income of $5.7 billion, and total revenue of $21.1 billion. These are very impressive numbers, and is obvious evidence that Wells Fargo is one of, if not the most profitable company in the nation right now. So, why not take some of this and distribute it to the rest of the employees."
uhm...what is the purpose of the FINANCIAL sector....or any sector for that matter......to make money
until we switch to communism(true communism) where there is no such thing as money, it will ALWAYS be that way
You think communism is the only alternative to a profit based corporate model?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but is there a limit? Is it an ethical imperative for me to give as much as I can to impoverished strangers --- or for employers to pay as much as they possibly can to their employees? 
