The Disturbing Distribution of Wealth

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:


Is 600:1 ethical?

Yes. If they take the risks, they deserve the rewards... especially when they bring wealth to those who work for them that they wouldn't have had otherwise. </font>[/QUOTE]Just a few years ago where I live you could have bought a house for about five to ten thousand dollars because a major manufacturer laid off about 20,000 workers in an area of about 150,000 people.

Most of their equipment is now built in other countries.

I cannot build a home for you made with Chinese hands. All the labor costs are American. If American companies are able to import their products from other countries to sell in the US then why shouldn't the construction industry be able to bring in Chinese and Mexican workers to cut costs to build homes so I can make a larger profit.

I am waiting for the day when I can build a home for a labor price of no insurance and four to ten dollars a day for labor and sell it for the same price as I do now. That's what big business has done.

 

[just-want-peace]

Why should the guy with mega-bucks invest in a venture that just may fail, IF he has not the expectation of reaping rewards?

His investment generates capital; that allows others (you & me) to get a job with his company thereby giving us a portion of that wealth.

Do you consider it “FAIR” that he risks his money if the venture fails but no loss to you since you invested “0” capital?

Normally, the higher the risk the greater the reward if successful, so how do you decide what ratio of gain he should reap vs. the employee? And if you can come up with a given ratio, what makes your choice the one to rule?

You have a product (your labor) that you are willing to sell, and unless you are some sort of kook, you are going to try to get the best $ deal you can. No problem here, because if your “price” for your “product” is satisfactory to the boss, you strike a deal and you are paid for your labor. If the two of you can’t agree, you go elsewhere and try again.

I have never seen or heard of a person asking for a reduced salary so the company would apply the reduction to a lower paid employee, yet that is basically what you are demanding that the investor do.

If you aren’t willing to do your part for the “less fortunate” then you are a hypocrite for accusing another of not doing precisely what you refuse to do.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is good socialist propaganda, but fine if left to each individual to apply as he feels led; WITH NO GOVERNMENT COERTION!

 

[gb93433]

In India they can get at least six engineers for one American engineer. Does that mean we should quit training engineers and begin hiring those in India. It would be much cheaper.

Should we quit giving out social security and retirement checks because labor is cheaper in India and China.

Is it ethical to have companies leave the US and employ Indian people in a plant that does not have safety regulations and if one is hurt that person means nothing? They just get replaced by another.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Is it ethical to have companies leave the US and employ Indian people in a plant that does not have safety regulations and if one is hurt that person means nothing? They just get replaced by another.

I agree there is an ethical problem with US companies employing folks in countries where safety, wage and environmental regulations are either non-existent or unenforced.

I applaud those interational development workers who are seeking to improve the laws and enforcement of those laws in countries like India so that people, communities and God's creation will not be abused and treated unethically by North American corporations while still providing much needed employment opportunities and skills training for people in those countries.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I think the argument is weak.
The poorest people have their holdings in the clothes on thier
back, wortheless to everybody.
The world's billionares hold their ownings in money producing
employee hiring business (many indirectly through
stocks). So instead of looking at what percentage of everything
that the rich hold, let us find the nubmer that show what
percentage of the world's jobs are provided by the filthy rich.

 

[gb93433]

Every person had a job long before corporations and world trade. It was in their back yard. Now that same person has a big tractor and sits on it for a few hours and then goes to work at a regular job. However some corporations have bought up the smaller family farms and turned it into big business such as Frito Lay who does not pay their workers 1.5 times of their regular pay for over time. They pay what is referred to as Chinese overtime. The more hours a person works the less per hour they get paid. So much for what big business has done.

Recently the price of steel in the US has risen sharply because of the Chinese market.

In the US the distance between the rich and poor has gotten much greater. The US is not generating jobs like they once did. They are just importing more Chinese goods that cost less for awhile. The corporations are manufacturing goods in other countries to be sold here. Those owners of the corporations live in the US but do not provide jobs here. If anything they are using the American taxpayer to provide for themselves and they buy land with the money the buyer of their goods provides. That is shipping money back overseas and into their own pockets. They are making money off of the Americans without providing jobs to Americans.

If one notices the prices of the same goods in other countries it is shocking. Medicines are much cheaper for the same exact thing made by the same company in Mexico. Computer software made by the same company in the US is much cheaper in many other countries. Why? It was developed here.

I have been self employed for many years and the cost burden percentage for insurance, etc. has about doubled in the last 20 years for the same work for skilled labor and even more for unskilled labor.

The world's billionaires do not hold money. They hold land around the world.