Used My "Angry" TItle Too Soon!

Turns out that wasn't anger.  Anger is more like this, where I cannot continue on with the work in front of me because I am so distracted and I feel a little sick to my stomach.  Here is a post I just saw on Facebook:

I know, right?  I mean, how can someone even dare say this in a time where our unemployment rate is at heights not seen in generations?  The haughtiness, the condescension, the indifference to others' plights!  It is just galling!  I seriously should probably defriend this person, but I do value being exposed to the opinions and resources of people with different points of view.  Here's the comment I posted on the picture:

"If only everyone knew this! The unemployment rate surely would plummet if the unemployed were informed that they could get money if they just got a job. Stupid unemployed people! 

These people are really getting on my last nerve with their free speech and their peaceful assemblies."

Because of course, this is all in reference to the Occupy movement.  Wherein the exact same methods (if not ideologies) are used by these people that have been used by the Tea Party.  Which was ok then, but is totally not now.  I mean, we can all see the distinction there, right?

I will say that some of the motivations we may attribute to some of these people are not ones I could agree with (just like I can't agree with all of those by the Tea Partiers).  Like, the feeling or idea that rich people don't deserve what they have.  In some cases, this is very, very, disgustingly, overwhelmingly true.  But in some cases it is not, and our society's principles are that you get rich through your own talent and effort, and that is to be lauded not derided.  So, there is some haughtiness and insult on each side.  

Yet, the latter doesn't make me sick to my stomach.  And I also understand the origins of their feelings, whereas I just don't understand how anyone could even think what they were thinking to create that poster!  Anyway, when you also have this:

you can start to get the sense that there is something...unfair.  Something even...nefarious, perhaps?  Surely those CEOs in other countries are talented and have worked hard as well.  And consistent with our American philosophy, they deserve to prosper for it.  But, does this philosophy have a limit?  Might we say that if someone is particularly talented and hard-working at economically subjugating masses of other people, that perhaps the rewards are less merited?  Or, to frame it in a way that more conservatives might understand, did our founders envision people being rewarded not only based on their talents and hard work, but by leveraging the power that they "earned" against those with less power in order to extend further and further and further those rewards they get? That at some point, they are no longer being rewarded for their talents and hard work, but for other less admirable things?  Like who their money has bought them access to?  Or for being a person that can more easily dismiss social implications of their actions (because those that are bothered by those concerns will not be rewarded as much)?  Just some thoughts...

I'm not trying to say that we should have a law that says CEO pay shall not exceed lineworker pay by more than a ratio of 10 or 100 or something.  None of those other countries have those laws.  They just, I think, have a culture that places a slightly more equitable value on people's talents and work.  They still reward the CEO more, but it really reveals their values as a culture.  And I'm sad and angry that Americans don't have those values, too.

Comments

[Penni]

Update: The guy who posted it eventually said he basically interprets this to mean that if someone wants to get money from wealthy people, they "simply" need to provide a good or service that the wealthy people want to buy. Yeah, it's that simple.

I also got some statements that "socialism is evil" and "they are trying to steal from the rich people (read you and me)". First, people really do think socialism is evil? I have a hard time attributing that word to most anything, and the top thing on my list definitely wouldn't be socialism. The second one: so cliche! They want to steal from you and me? And we are rich? Oh, how I laugh. Even when they admit they are not millionaires and billionaires, I find it confounding that these people are so quick to jump to the defense of rich people, but you know, never to the defense of sick, uninsured people, or people persecuted because of their race, etc.

I was outraged all night and couldn't get a thing done!

[Penni]

Second Update: I was called a Communist. Yeah, that just happened.

[Ps Mom]

I sure appreciate (and am proud) that you're concerned about so many important issues that extend outside the scope of "me and mine", Penni. So many people aren't willing to look outside their own front yard. Plus, they're so ignorant of facts that they're like chickens offering to buy the colonel some more siding for their coops because of course he'll provide them more comfortable place to raise their young!

[Ps Mom]

I'm having NO success trying to copy your pay scale chart from here. Could you tell me how to copy it or give a link to where you got it from. I'm not that great at googling things either, so have had no success finding it that way.

[Penni]

The thing I keep finding in continuing discussions of this is that people think the protestors should shut up because they shouldn't be able to steal money from those hard working bankers. I have a hard time understanding why they hate the protestors and think they are demanding money for nothing and are socialists when, if they really hate them because they are advocating socialism, they ought to hate Wall St the most and be out there WITH the protestors! Wall Street is the biggest example of socialism I think I've ever heard of in this country. And while those same people will say, "Well I didn't agree with the bailouts" they seem like they are fine with them keeping the ill-gotten spoils of them (not just money, but their jobs) and furthermore they are against any kind of regulation that would prevent this happening again (which is at least not hypocritical as the rest of their position is). So they are basically inviting Wall Street to do it again and use us again. Wall Street has absolutely no incentive not to.

Finally, from a true libertarian standpoint, the only thing we really can do is protest. We have no power as consumers to use the market to show our disapproval to these corporations. Unlike choosing not to shop at Wal-Mart or purchase products that are made by Nike or something like that, I would contend that it is simply impossible to live a life that isn't reclusively spent on a fully self-sustaining farm or something, without supporting companies like AIG, Citibank, BofA, Morgan Stanley and others. These companies are facilitators of so many everyday and basic transactions in life that even if you could find out which companies used them and tried to get at them that way, you would find that there are no companies that do not regularly use them! I've never had a chance to ask a libertarian what you do in a case where the market can't be used against a company by consumers, but I'd be interested to know. I see no way that we have power to hold them accountable at all or show support for alternate financial practices, as envisioned by laissez-faire supporters.