Quote Originally Posted by zookeeper View Post
You're wanting to change the subject. Sam's Club is laying off workers while six of their owners profit to the tune of $25,000.00 per minute in dividends alone.
Some people it's just not worth arguing with. You somehow have that kind of grotesque concentration of wealth mixed up with the American Dream.

What's this doing in OKCpedia anyway?

I'm sorry. I just get really frustrated at people not being able to tell the difference between capitalism and corporatism.
Sorry, zoo, no offense, but this is simply more redistributionist rhetoric that boils down to the fallacious notion that tries to create a singular cause-and-effect relationship between the wealthy and the poor (or, perhaps more accurately in this discussion, "working class.")

I know of no system in world history that did not create some form of disparity between groups. And there always will be. Because there will always be trash that must be collected, streets that must be swept, buildings that must be maintained, store shelves to be stocked, broken things to repair, and it is a matter of historical fact that not all those occupations draw the same compensation no matter how that compensation was calculated - either by government fiat or market forces.

The notion of "grotesque concentration of wealth" is ad-hominem rhetoric to create the illusion that it is those wealthy people who, merely by virtue of their wealth, somehow "wronged" the folks without the wealth, and thus "something oughta be done!!" But what's the wrong? Sam Walton created an empire worth billions. He has/had every right to ensure his family enjoyed the benefits of that empire.

If, in your eyes, this is wrong, what's the remedy? Shall the government create an arbitrary, bright white line at which it says "You are no longer allowed to earn $x, and we shall confiscate any amount over that threshhold and redistribute it 'fairly.'" Do we say "you make so much money, you won't miss this penny, this dollar, this ten-spot, this hundred, this thousand, or this million?" You can't go down that path, because doing so makes everyone at risk because everyone's perception of what's "too much" or "wrong" will vary, making that means test entirely subjective.

Is this to say every aspect of what the Walton empire does is pure or altruistic? Of course not. But if we are going to engage in some form of righteous indignation, it has to be for reasons more concrete then "I don't like how much money they have." Are they violating labor laws? Get 'em. Are they forcing children into slave labor camps? Shut 'em down. But so long as the argument is just the former, implying the solution is government confiscation and redistribution, and creating a punitive response to successful business practices, then I just can't get on board with it. This "evil" Walton empire has created thousands of jobs of varying quality, enhanced the local sales tax base of thousands of cities, and provided retail opportunities smaller cities never even conceived of even 50 years ago. To dismantle or punish that merely because "I don't like how much money they have" just doesn't pass the test for me. They have that money because of the empire Walton Sr. built, based on paying the wages the market and the business environment taught him should be paid.

I appreciate what you're saying, zoo, I do, but creation of wealth isn't in and of itself a bad thing. It demonstrates what is possible. I can't fathom a situation in which we decide its a good thing to start punishing it merely for its own existence.