Greed vs Envy

Yes, people set themselves up as judges, and one's greed can be said to be relative to their judgment; but it can also be said to be relative to that of the supreme Judge, so there is no sense pretending it is purely subjective.

Of course it isn't, as long as it's wanted for good reason.

Sure it is, but so is earning wealth by legal means for no better purpose than ego-aggrandizement.

 

"Anyone working a 40hr/week job deserves a living wage that doesn't require Govt. assistance."

Taxcutter says:
Not if what they do isn't worth that much.

 

Wanting to 'keep stuff you earned yourself' isn't 'greed' - greed would be more along the lines of, being against voluntary charity or sharing. Simply "wanting the money that you earned" doesn't' deserve to be called greed, that's almost disparaging

 

---Wanting to keep the stuff you earn is selfishness. I've used this analogy about greed before, but I think it is worth repeating because it is simple and effective: You have 5 people and 4 cookies. Each person is allowed to take any number of cookies when it is their turn to select. In the first scenario, the first four people take one cookie each and nothing is left for the last person. This is selfishness. In the second scenario the first person takes all four cookies. This is greed. In the third scenario the fourth person shares his cookie with the fifth person in a display of altruism. Things become increasingly less simplistic when we consider essential items like water and food and shelter. There is only so much to go around and a healthy degree of selfishness insures your survival. Greed unnecessarily encroaches on the survival of others. Unchecked altruism can lead to the extinction of everyone. Healthy levels of selfishness and altruism are good and should be fostered.

---Envy is something more insidious than covetousness. To covet is to desire that which belongs to others. Envy is resentment for what others have. Those that covet might carry out theft to take what his neighbor has. Those that envy will destroy what his neighbor has so that he cannot have it. In the eyes of envy, having it for yourself is not as important as depriving the object of your envy. It is destructive, vindictive and petty. It should be stamped out as much as greed.

EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, I am a selfish person with altruistic tendencies, and I despise the greedy and envious.

 

Well guess what going to happen if the ultra rich corporation doesn't pay that employee a living wage. You're going to subsidize that employee for that corporation with your TAX DOLLARS VIA GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. Then you're going to (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about all these freeloaders on food stamps. When you should really be (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about the low wages they're getting paid. Is this too hard for you to grasp !!!!!!

 

"You're going to subsidize that employee for that corporation with your TAX DOLLARS VIA GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS."

Taxcutter says:
Not necessarily. The Republic got by just fine for most of its assistance without any dole.

 

Not sure why you define greed as "keeping what you made." Keeping what we made is greed?

Whatever happened to enlightened self-interest? That was the engine that made America the shining city on a hill.

 

Why? And where have I said the GOVERNMENT is a failure. It fails at certain things it does espeically when it ventures outside the authority granted to it in the Constitution.

Better at what? Can you be more specific.

It doesn't subsidize the oil industry.

It depends on the regulating doesn't it?

 

Who has taken everything and is keeping it? They must have missed me for I still have my things and getting more of them. When did they come get your things and what are you doing now to live? And when government comes in and tells you you can only keep $20,000 of what you make and you can't save and accumulate anything what will you do?

Explain to me how this new way we live would manifest itself. Government telling us how much we can make and keep for ourselves.

 

The people complaining about it not being equal. Massive strawman.

Just responded to another person saying government should be able to tell us what we can make and how much of it we can keep to make it equal.

 

Frankly I am sick of the over use of the word greed. Wanting to not pay more in taxes does not qualify as greed. Wanting to keep one's own money is not greed. If it were all people are greedy. On top of that if a rich person fights to keep the government from taking more money but then turns around and contributes a ton of money to a charitable cause, how is this person greedy in even the looses of senses?

Envy on the other hand I see exhibited by a lot of people here with the vehement insults of anybody who is rich.

 

Nope it says, join in and do what it takes to make a lot and enjoy it. Can you show me how the former Soviet Union had the best interest of the citizens at heart when they eliminated "greed"? You know the from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs? Can you show me how our system of make what you can and keep it as you wish offered less freedom and liberty and opportunity?

 

C'mon, that's easy. If people who insist on keeping what they have are greedy bastards, thieves are champions of justice.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Bluesguy View Post
It's not a zero sum gain. Do you really want government telling you how much you can make and keep?

Who does more work, the person on the assembly line that wraps a tie wrap around a bunch of wires going into a machine or the CEO who manages and directs the operations and future of the company? Who is more valuable? Who is more difficult to replace? Who works more hours?
Can you cite me some of the companies you invest in that pay the workers the same as the managers and chief operating officials?

 

Strawman. I've never claimed we should be communist.

But capitalism says reduce costs as much as possible to maximize profit. Thus the incentive is not to have workers "join in" but to pay them as little as possible.

Which is why you never see Republicans supporting things like minimum wage standards, unions, broader OT laws, progressive taxes, etc. etc. Their goal is not to help the middle class "join in" but further enrich the 1%. Because I guess the 1% controling 40% of the nation's wealth is not enough.

 

What is a "living wage"? Companies pay based on what the value of the job is, not what it takes for someone to live at a certain standard of living. Granted that companies that want to keep valuable people will pay them a wage which satisfies their needs else they face the probability of losing those valuable people. And people who do make themselves more valuable will find they get paid more. If you don't why should you expect to be paid more?

A valuable lesson I learned early in life, the workers who sit around and say that if they would just pay me more I would work harder and show up regularly are the ones that never get paid more. You make yourself more valuable and you will get paid more.

And if government stops subsidizing the freeloaders guess what, they go to work and do the things to seek higher wages on their own.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say you did straw man. Now address the example I gave you.

Can you show me how the former Soviet Union had the best interest of the citizens at heart when they eliminated "greed"? You know the from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs? Can you show me how our system of make what you can and keep it as you wish offered less freedom and liberty and opportunity?

 

Why should I defend practices in the SU when I've never argued we should adopt their system?

Straw man. I've never claimed we should be communist.

 

Interesting... I will keep your response here in mind if you decide to discusses the automotive industry again.

 

Then you should have never allowed our country adopt deregulation, NAFTA and Free Trade. How do they compete with a company in Mexico and China making the same product for 50 cents and hour?

Then you should have supported American companies while they were here instead of trying to save a couple of dollars buying foreign made.

We have no one to blame but ourselves and our government for what has happened. Business just took what government gave them and went abroad because we didn't support them. Those that stayed are fighting for their life.

 

People are not valued in a company, and frankly a person should not value their employer any further then the paycheck they get.

Loyalty means as much as the check that comes with it. People should work towards doing their job as well they can, but don't think doing a good job means you will be promoted or paid more or even valued.

 

Loyalty should be both ways. There was a time and I don't know if it's still done today, but you could go to a GM,Ford or Chrysler factory and see more foreign cars in their parking lot than Americans. As bad as they were hurting, why wouldn't you buy what they made. It's job security. They use to demand that those in foreign cars, park in the back of the lot. Do you know Japan does that? It's hard to sell products in Japan, they believe in supporting home made products.

 

You don't compete. But people are NOT going to pay double or triple the price just for something Made in the USA. There is this thing called opportunity cost in economics, it pretty much explains why China and various other countries make things so cheaply. Free Trade has nothing to do with it.

 

Maybe the Toyotas are a better car. Sure if you work in manufacturing buying your own product is nice, but I am a RN why should I be more loyal to one hospital over another? For me it is all about money and benefits. I can do what I do anywhere.

 

Free trade has nothing to do with it? Hell it doesn't. How does Whirlpool compete with LG and Samsung when they are paying $18.00 an hour plus benefits and LG is making them in Mexico and Korea, paying a fourth of what Whirlpool pays and compete? Especially when Whirlpool has to keep their prices in line with LG? Sure the LG washer will be fifty to a hundred bucks cheaper and Americans will buy them up like crazy. How does Whirllpool compete? they close three factories here, lay off 5,000 employees and move to Mexico. That's the only way to compete. The employees here aren't going to take a big pay cut to keep the factories here.

I have to go for awhile.

 

What's the alternative? Stopping imports? Companies are multinational, borders don't mean much to them other then costs of doing business in one country versus another.