Are wealthy people unethical?

[furface]

This is something that I think needs to be addressed. My personal belief is that the way our current system is set up, being unethical gives you a tremendous advantage. The problem is with the system, not that the things that should make you wealthy like productivity, ingenuity, resourcefulness, etc correlate with unethical behavior. The problem is that those things will not generally make you wealthy in our society.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20...73109.abstract

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals. In studies 1 and 2, upper-class individuals were more likely to break the law while driving, relative to lower-class individuals. In follow-up laboratory studies, upper-class individuals were more likely to exhibit unethical decision-making tendencies (study 3), take valued goods from others (study 4), lie in a negotiation (study 5), cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize (study 6), and endorse unethical behavior at work (study 7) than were lower-class individuals. Mediator and moderator data demonstrated that upper-class individuals’ unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.

[Travlyr]

The system is unethical. Central bankers get their power from counterfeiting. It's a tad ridiculous that some "banker" should be worth $trillions while others strive to find shelter and decent quality food. He's not THAT hard of a worker! He doesn't benefit society THAT much more than a gardener! Sure, an honest system would have some inequity. The harder one works, the more persistent, the more intelligent will prosper more than the lazy people. But, if it is based on honest efforts, then the disparity of wealth would shrink to reasonable levels based on efforts of production and benefit to society.

[Zippyjuan]

There is no system which can create ethical people. There will aways be those who will do whatever they think they can get away with. "To the benefit of all society" assumes that all people would be honest and altruistic which they are not. Everybody wants what they can get for themselves basically.

He doesn't benefit society THAT much more than a gardener!

Sounds kinda like communism- the higher ups do not deserve to be paid much more than those at the lower levels. If you were CEO of a company would you agree to be paid the same as the janitor in the name of fairness- especially if he/ she did a really good job?

[Roy L]

There is no system which can create ethical people. There will aways be those who will do whatever they think they can get away with. "To the benefit of all society" assumes that all people would be honest and altruistic which they are not. Everybody wants what they can get for themselves basically.

But people respond to incentives. If they can make billions through crooked dealing without making a productive contribution, as under our current system, then that's what they will do. If the only way to make money is through making a commensurate contribution to production, then at least the people who make a lot of money will have earned it.

Sounds kinda like communism- the higher ups do not deserve to be paid much more than those at the lower levels. If you were CEO of a company would you agree to be paid the same as the janitor in the name of fairness- especially if he/ she did a really good job?

Nonsense. I have no problem with how much CEOS are paid. I have a problem with what they are paid FOR, which in the current system is usually crooked political and financial manipulations unrelated to any sort of productive contribution. I have known people who made a lot of money BY THEIR PRODUCTIVE CONTRIBUTIONS, and people who have made much, much more money through manipulation and crooked dealing. The former DESERVE to have a lot more money than other people. The latter deserve to be in jail.

[Travlyr]

There is no system which can create ethical people.

I agree. Some people behave in an ethical manner while others behave in unethical manners. That is one reason contract law, restitution, and justice are so important.

There are, however, ethical monetary systems and unethical monetary systems. When the special privilege of counterfeiting money is allowed by only a few elite in order to bless them with abundant wealth and power at the expense of everyone else, then that is an unethical monetary system. It is theft. That is what central banking is ... The Federal Reserve System ... and the like. Another term for it is "elastic" money.

Sound monetary policy is an ethical system of money. It starts with an individual's right to own a little piece of the world's pie ... a piece of land with rights to the minerals, water, and privacy against trespassers. Then if a landowner choses to work the land, build on that land, or mine the land, he/she can enjoy the fruits of his/her labor. Contract law protects individuals against thieves who steal from honest producers by seeking restitution for the theft. Sound monetary systems are ethical systems of money.

There will aways be those who will do whatever they think they can get away with. "To the benefit of all society" assumes that all people would be honest and altruistic which they are not. Everybody wants what they can get for themselves basically.

And that is what Dr. Ron Paul is referring to when he says that "everybody who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable." Not all people are ethical, so a system of ethics is in order to settle disputes and establish justice. In other words, put an end to the unethical system of money ... End The Fed.

Sounds kinda like communism- the higher ups do not deserve to be paid much more than those at the lower levels.

Not at all. If you read the "10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto" then you will discover that the intention of the socialists is to control society with a central bank, indoctrination systems of control, and force everybody to pay into the system for the greater good of society. As you can easily see, communism is what Americans have had to endure since 1913 ... and even before ... since 1861 when the socialistic parasites first invaded our republic with their irredeemable paper currency, wars for profit, and income tax. The fact is that they are closest to the money printing machine so they take money off the top in the form of insider privilege ... otherwise known as bailouts, etc. They take $billions for being elite and pay their janitors $thousands.

If you were CEO of a company would you agree to be paid the same as the janitor in the name of fairness- especially if he/ she did a really good job?

No, not at all. If the janitor doesn't want to take the business risks that a CEO must take, then he'll have to be happy with janitor's wages as set by the marketplace. As a CEO of my company, since I possess some empathic traits, if I was earning 100,000 ounces of silver each year, then I could see my way to pay the janitor 30 pieces of silver per week. If that is not enough, then he has the right to ask for more, and I have the right to pay his demand, or let him go his way and hire a new janitor. Everybody is free to succeed if they so choose.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Are poor people unethical? I mean it's the poor vote for socialist government so that they'd rob the middle-class & rich & give it to them!

I think such rhetoric is only used by class-warfarists, who want to usurp power by using people's ignorance, jealousy & insecurity; there are ethical & unethical amongst poor as well as rich

[furface]

Are poor people unethical? I mean it's the poor vote for socialist government so that they'd rob the middle-class & rich & give it to them!

I think such rhetoric is only used by class-warfarists, who want to usurp power by using people's ignorance, jealousy & insecurity; there are ethical & unethical amongst poor as well as rich

It's not purely rhetoric. The studies are a matter of scientific fact.

[Twilliams]

I just don't see this as legitimate science. I strongly question the motives of studies that try to classify a group's morals/ethics based on their wealth or lack thereof.

But I guess you do need "scientific facts" to back up cases for legislation. [sarcasm]

[presence]

If the janitor doesn't want to take the business risks that a CEO must take, then he'll have to be happy with janitor's wages as set by the marketplace.

That certainly is an elitist simplified version of reality.

Quickly I can compile a list of Physical Risks for janitorial work that outweigh "business" Risks associated with being a CEO:

Falls; Broken Bones
Chemical Burns
Brain Damage from Inhalation
Lung and Eye Irritation
Back Injury
Bio Hazards, Blood, Urine, Feces
Damage Liability
Security Responsibilities
Electrical Hazards
Muscle and Joint Damage

When is the last time as CEO you've read an MSDS?

A CEO takes risks with other peoples careers and corporate bank accounts to determine whether he'll make $250,000 or $25,000,000 this year.

A Janitor takes risks with his own health and public safety to determine if he'll make $25,000 or.... get fired.

Clearly it is not risk that determines the ever rising 200:1 CEO to Janitorial pay ratio in the US.

may cause permanent reproductive harm,

presence

[furface]

I just don't see this as legitimate science. I strongly question the motives of studies that try to classify a group's morals/ethics based on their wealth or lack thereof.

You don't seem to have a problem with the science. You have a problem with the conclusions. If you have a problem with the methodology of the studies, it would nice if you pointed out the flaws you see in what they did. For instance how they collected the data, who they polled, etc. I know some of these things are just abstracts and not very detailed, but you can make inferences even from that. To blanket discount the studies as unscientific without addressing the details of the way they were performed is illegitimate.