PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Defining Greed:
Thread: Defining Greed:
View Single Post
Old 28th April 2008 | 08:28
  #7 (permalink)  
jed_thrust
 
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
From: Sai Kungah
Missing Blade,

Your quote: “Capitalism is out of control and morally bankrupt. It is doing less and less to improve the lives of the masses…I have no problem with people getting rich - but I do have a problem with everybody else getting poorer in the process.” is standard fare in many circles, but most notably on the Left (used to be known as Communists); this notion, that economic growth is morally tainted is far from new, but is also, thankfully, wrong.


Mr Benjamin Friedman, in “The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth” writes extremely persuasively about the many issues involved, and talks about how “…the value of a rising standard of living lies not just in the concrete improvements it brings to how individuals live but in how it shapes the social, political and ultimately the moral character of a people.”


The Economist mentions that growing prosperity makes people more tolerant, more willing to settle disputes peacefully, more inclined to favour democracy. Stagnation and economic decline are associated with intolerance, ethnic strife and dictatorship. Think of the few countries in the world that currently actively avoid capitalism – and pursue a policy of isolationism - (North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar, even China 30 years ago) and it should be painfully clear that “a rising tide lifts all ships”.


I will grant you that not all people get richer at the same rate, but there is no question in my mind that nearly everybody (or every cohort) is now better off than they were a few decades ago. Just think of the current poverty line: it used to be USD1 per person per day. The material benefits of growth, chiefly in the form of extra goods and services, become available to everyone over time.


I cannot argue with your quote: “"The average CEO made 42 times the average worker's pay in 1980. That increased to 85 times in 1990 and is now over 300 times." because, although not attributed, I can believe that it is probably correct. However, the real nub of this problem is that (as someone who has been here longer than I mentioned) in the early 90s, a Cathay Captain was earning close to 20 times the average Male Earnings in Australia, and yet now the multiplier is probably about 4 times. The other problem is that society’s presumption about our job is still stuck in the 90s: they think we earn a million bucks and have 18 days off a month (like we used to!).


This is probably the reason we are all feeling “poor” and why we feel we deserve a pay rise. Maybe – if we don’t do something - in 10 year’s time our wage will equal the average Male Earnings?
jed_thrust is offline  
Reply