It seems morally questionable that CEO's of major corporations are paid so much more than the average worker. The average pay for a CEO of a corporation is 465 times higher than that of the average worker in the U.S..
I actually spoke of this inequity at a recent Christian men's group meeting, only to have one of the members nod and say something like..."It's the market economy." The words alone are fairly innocuous, but his connotation told me he felt perfectly satisfied with the situation. He seemed unable to recognize the corruption of a system that glorifies one man over another to such a degree. Is such a differentiation the will of God, or is it a manifistation of how profoundly corrupt our Capitalist system has become. I left the meeting, which took place in a richly appointed church building, with no luxury spared, wondering how this good man had become so psychologically innured to a situation that to mind seems so obviously sinful.
In my opinion, the corruption this statistic speaks of in our society is so profound it is difficult to quantify. How can a single man imagine it's morally sound to earn 465 dollars for every one dollar earned by the average worker? Does he work 465 times harder than the worker? Does he put in 465 times more time than the average worker? Is his level of wisdom 465 times greater than the average worker?
In today's column right wing rantmeister Bill 0'Reilly (who never met a rich man he didn't love, unless that rich man happened to be a Democrat.) celebrates the firing of University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill. While I feel Churchill's comments about the victims of 9/11 were insensitive, I do understand his point. Money or perhaps more rightfully spoken the worship of the god Mammon has become the most pressing form of moral collapse in our society. When Ward Churchill referred to the victims of 9/11 as "little Eichmanns" (Churchill did not call the 9/11 victims Nazis as o'Reilly states in his column) he was simply saying that many in our Capitalistic system are basically well meaning men, who have found themselves in jobs where they blindly perform acts of evil without thought or self recognition of the damage they cause.
This same quality, one of well meaning obliviousness, seems to permeate our business society. Exploding salaries, exclusive to the highest paid only, are only one bit of evidence to support Churchill's idea.
O'Reilly goes on to revile the ACLU, one of the only organizations that regularly champions the rights of workers over big business, calling that group "a dishonest group that has no interest in anybody's speech they don't like". I wonder if O'Reilly might not be fishing for a mote in the eye of the ACLU and failing to see the beam in his own eye.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
So what is a solution to the problem?
I believe the problem has manifested itself into every aspect of our society. Bigger cars, bigger houses, bigger churches, bigger debt. It all begins with the notion we're all individuals and not a part of a collective whole.
The selfish "I" has replaced the collective "We". We've gone from "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country." to "no new taxes" because I can't make the payments on my 3000 sqr. ft. home, my two gas guzzling SUVs, my new travel trailer etc...etc...etc..
We've come to believe it's all about the individual, and how safe and cozy we can make it for ourselves and ourselves only. Until that notion changes then there is no solution.
We have to take responsibility for our actions... Pay off the national debt, even if it means more taxes. We must cut back on our energy usage, even if it means driving a four cylinder car rather than a gargantuan gas guzzler. Clearly ethanol is not the solution to the energy crisis. Did you know it take almost as much energy to make a gallon of corn ethanol as that gallon of fuel provides. The ration is 1 to 1.3. In other words corn biofuels are a huge boondoggle. We have to use less energy if we want to get out from under the thumbs of the foreign oil. It's no wonder Hugo Chavez is so smug. He figures we're too selfish to change, and based upon the number of gas guzzlers on the road (we drive a small Nissan that gets 36 mpg on the highway, and have a six cylinder van that gets about 22 on average. I want to do even better in the future) he's right. We're too selfish to change.
As for the stock market, it's recent rise, driven mostly by inflation, only makes life harder for the poor. Sure it's nice to be rich in this country, but increasingly it's hell to be poor. No health care, poor food, and Republicans still thinking the problem is food stamps or WIC. Why not point a finger at corporate welfare...no that would be too much like addressing the problem.
In the end, Republican policy has been to give money to the rich so jobs will be created. Has it led to greater prosperity for the working classes...no.
Wages for working people have stagnated while the rich have grown ever richer.
Your choice as a voter is simple. You can take care of the least in our society and vote Democrat, or stay with the Republicans and vote for more tax breaks for the rich, more corporate welfare, more earmark money to wealthy special interests.
When you give all the cookies to the fat kid and tell him to share you shouldn't then deny it when he doesn't. That's what's happening. The Repulicans are giving all the cookies to the fat (wealthy) kids and predictably the fat kids are gobbling them down for themselves.
Did you hear that Murdoch is buying the Dow Jones Index?
seriously.
ascendancy of AAR as a **true JOURNALISTIC Entity** of TRUTH
Spread Love...
... but wear the Glove!
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
"We, two, form a multitude" ~ Ovid
==
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
I believe the problem has manifested itself into every aspect of our society.
You've defined the problem well, lequino. Obscenely high salaries among corporate executives is only a very blatant symptom of the problem of greed, which has its roots in covetousness ("Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth." Luke 12:15 KJV)
I remember an old boss of mine in Germany - a retired Army Master Sergeant turned GS-12 Department of the Army civilian employee. This guy bought every gadget almost the moment it came out on the market. One day, in a moment of candor, he admitted to our NCO in charge that he derived short-term pleasure from his new "toys," but after a while, he grew bored and needed a new "toy."
Corporate executives only have access to costlier "toys" than the rest of us. How much of our emotion about their ostentatious lifestyle is based on righteous indignation that they aren't caring for the least of these, and how much is simply envy that they have more toys than we do. I'm reminded of Judas Iscariot:
Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus' feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. (John 12:3-6 NIV)
(cont'd)
Your choice as a voter is simple. You can take care of the least in our society and vote Democrat...
Here's where we part ways. Like Karl Marx 160 years earlier, you've defined the problem clearly, but your solution doesn't attack the root of the problem.
Taking care of the least in our society through government programs ultimately fails on a at least three levels:
1) Like Judas and his money purse, taking from the rich to give to the poor enriches the holder of the purse - not necessarily in terms of wealth, but certainly in terms of power. People tend to vote for people who give them stuff. There's no incentive for the politician to bring those people to a point of self-sufficiency, because the politician loses his leverage over those who would otherwise vote for him. Give a man a fish, he'll vote for the politician who gives him another. Teach a man to fish, and he no longer needs that politician.
2) Taking too much from the achievers in our society serves as a disincentive for them to achieve more, and the pie shrinks.
3) By supplying the poor with their financial needs, the government robs them of something much more valuable: pride in a job well done and incentive to better himself. The Bible is clear about sloth: Proverbs is full of examples, and my favorite New Testament passage on this subject is this:
For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:7-10 NIV; emphasis added)
Does this mean we should ignore the plight of the homeless, the disabled and the working poor? By no means! But these problems can best be handled by the Church for at least two reasons:
1) The volunteers who are providing this help are doing so not to perpetuate their government job, but because they are truly interested in the lives of those they are serving. Success is measured not by how many people still need their help, but by the number who no longer do. This is not to say that there are no compassionate bureaucrats, but government by its very nature is more centralized than the local church, hence further removed from individual problems.
2) The Church addresses the problem lying at the root of all this - the human heart. Government can throw money at the problem all day long, but until we tackle the problem of covetousness, the haves will continue to cling to their wealth and the have nots will resent them for it, thinking that if they only had a bit more, their lives would be fulfilled. When hearts are changed, the haves live up to their responsibility ("From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Luke 12:48b NIV) and the have nots will strive for more income, not out of covetousness, but so they too may help others less fortunate (Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 NIV)
This last passage sums it all up. Our comfort comes not from government, not from the Democratic Party, but from God: "the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort." If we truly believe that, we would realize that our only choice as believers is, as the title of the Christian praise song goes, "pass it on."
I made no mention in my writing of taking from the rich to give to the poor.
In usual Republican style you define Democrats in exactly the way they've been defined for you. Turn off the liars at Fox News for God's sake. Democrats are not fire breathing Marxists who would turn our country into something resembling Red China. It's a ridiculous characterization, a brilliant political strategy, one that appeals to the Eugene McCarthy in everyone on the Republican side. And it is a lie.
Here are the areas that must be controlled by Socialized control.
1. Education -- Already socialized. Cannot be privatized. Are you going to suddenly say Education is no longer free. Democrats would like to see more money for higher education than Republicans, so there is the difference.
2. Retirement -- Social Security -- I've paid into this system my entire life. I'm not about to say, hey lets line the pockets of a bunch of Wall Street Goons with the cash I paid in. Of course the Republicans have found a way to steal a lot of peoples retirement funds. The law they passed which denies Social Security payments to individuals who pay a certain amount into other retirement funds was highway robbery. It probably doesn't affect you though so what do you care right? I actually worked for twenty years in private jobs, but now stand to loose those benefits thanks to George W.'s hard work because I'm a teacher and now pay into the Texas Employee's retirement fund. Thanks Curious for your support.
3. Health Care -- Already socialized, but in an extremely inefficient way. This system has been socialized by private insurance companies. Most Republicans don't want an efficient medical care system because they've bought into the lies told the by big money insurance agencies. Would it mean higher taxes...maybe...hell probably. But again, as Christians taking care of the sick, even if they're flat broke, is the only decent thing to do.
So please stop with your false notions of Democrats...They are not Marxists, they are not what Rush Lierbaugh, and Bill O'Liarly have told you we are. Sean (dropout) Hannity is not a man of character, and Brit Rupert Murdoch is not a uberpatriot who loves America. All of these men are tools of the ultra-rich. Stop listening to them, they are liars who will bully, hate, fear monger, and generally mislead you in any way they can to keep the wealthy men they support in power.
As for your notion that churches should care for the poor...awww...you are an idealist aren't you. If churches should be caring for the poor the
WHY THE HELL AREN'T THEY DOING IT!!!!
I'll tell you why. They are too busy building gigantic structures to meet in...like the massive temple that Trinity Church has built on the south side of town...and how about the uber cathedral built by Southside (Westside?)(I believe that's the name of the church) on the south end of Soncy. How about the massive structure built by Quail Creek church, or in the past the Polk Street Methodists, or the downtown Presbyterian church. Or how about the gigantic Church of Christ on 45th between Western and Bell. Or lets see...that other gigantic Methodist Church on Western near 45th, St. Stephens...or how about any of about twenty gigantic Baptist Churches in town. No sir...churches have too many appearences to maintain to take care of the poor. They have salaries to pay, doctrine to spread, schools to maintain, music programs to support, missionaries to spread the word in foreign places, lawn care to consider, commitees to parse it all out, and in the end, precious little to meet the expensive health care and housing needs of the indigent. It isn't happening now, and all your idealism won't make it happen in the future.
In the end, while I don't disagree that churches should shoulder the burden of caring for the poor, you must admit they haven't done so...particularly in the realm of healthcare. With around 70 million Americans uninsured our healthcare system is severly broken. Time to admit it.
I might buy the notion that churches can take care of hunger, but not healthcare. It won't happen. So again your choice is support a better system of socialized healthcare, or accept the current system which doesn't even come up to the standard found in Cuba. That's not me talking by the way...check the World Health Organization website and take a look at their rankings.
Unless of course you think it's okay that a lot of poor people can't get decent health care in this country. Of course you probably don't see those individuals in your neighborhood, so it must be a lie drummed up by Socialists right?
Lord have mercy on us.
I made no mention in my writing of taking from the rich to give to the poor.
Then how would you describe a progressive income tax system that's used to fund social engineering?
So please stop with your false notions of Democrats...They are not Marxists
After I posted that, I realized you might take it the wrong way. All I'm saying is that Democrats/liberals/progressives see the problem clearly, but not the solution, IMHO.
As for your notion that churches should care for the poor...awww...you are an idealist aren't you.
If believing that people who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior should be motivated to follow His teachings, then yeah, I'm an idealist.
What's the source of your idealism when it come to government doing a better job?
If churches should be caring for the poor the
WHY THE HELL AREN'T THEY DOING IT!!!!
They are.
I'll admit we could be doing more if more Christians would be willing to part with their precious time, talents, and yes money (("For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Matt. 6:21, NIV)
I've got more to say about education, retirement and health care (all great topics for separate posts, by the way), as well as the "edifice complex" of some churches but no time to say it. My wife is already bugging me about unloading the dishwasher, and I've got to get ready to go to my pre-op appointment at 9 o'clock.
My wife has already informed me that she won't let me blog all day long while I'm recuperating from my surgery, so even after I'm knocked out of commission next week, my blogging moratorium will probably continue for some time thereafter. I'll miss this exchange of ideas.
Hope you get to feeling better soon. Take care of yourself
During my quiet time this morning I read this passage that touched my heart:
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life. (1 Timothy 6:17-19 NIV)
Apparently I'm not the only conservative Christian that feels this way. Mike Huckabee, my personal favorite among Republican presidential nominees, was interviewed on CBS last night. Here's a link that includes an internal link to the video of the interview. It's pretty lengthy - about 18 minutes - but well worth the time, IMHO. If you don't have the time, at least read the article.
This quote shows how he's emerging as the conscience of the GOP:
"Republicans ought to be leading the way to be better stewards on the environment, and we're not. Republicans ought to be leading the way and speaking out against the kind of corporate greed that has resulted in the loss of millions of jobs in this country."
See, we're not all "typical" Republicans. :)
Hey I thought you were supposed to be taking it easy. I looked at the article on Huckabee. Are you sure he's not a Democrat pretending to be a Republican? Big business taking care of something other than their own pocketbook, caring for the earth...sounds a little too good to be...well a Republican. lol
I snuck that last comment in before my wife got home from work. I don't actually go under the knife until Monday, the 6th.
Take a closer look at Mike Huckabee; I think you'll like what you see, especially since you're a self-described Yellow Dog Democrat. A good starting place would be http://www.mikehuckabee.com.
This will be my last comment before my surgery (I promise!), but I just couldn't let this pass:
Re the fate of Ken Lay: Read what the minor prophet Habakkuk had to say (Chapter 2):
9 "Woe to him who builds his realm by unjust gain to set his nest on high, to escape the clutches of ruin!
10 You have plotted the ruin of many peoples, shaming your own house and forfeiting your life.[Emphasis added]
More about Enron: Pamela Geller, the Jewish conservative and creator of the blog Atlas Shrugs posts an ad on the left sidebar of her home page by the Judeo-Christian conservative Center for a Just Society proclaiming that "[s]iding with schemers who commit fraud is NOT a conservative value."
Post a Comment