Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
OK, to answer your points
it's her money, if its a choice between her deciding or the money not being made available then yes, it's fair for her to decide.
legally, yes, she did earn the money
Amazon employees recently received a raise increase in the US to $15ph and in the UK to £9.50PH
Another one for you to consider, the Bill & Melinda (Gates) foundation is working it's way towards giving $60Bn away in the form of various initiatives.
There are wealthy people who do a lot of good in the world.
Here's a US article from a couple of years ago for you to look at
http://money.com/money/4543503/wealt...-philanthropy/
returning back to the pay amazon employees more, that's not how it works. if you were to start paying low skilled employees a significant increase on salaries then the salaries for skilled employees are going to rise also. costs of living, inflation increasing etc. leaving the low skilled/low paid employees exactly where they were with a much devalued currency |
Legally yes but morally? Also, define "earn" in your context
I am very aware of the concept of billionaire philanthropy but the whole thing is predicated on a construct that is flawed. My point is that no one should be allowed to accrue such wealth in the first place. The wealth curve needs to be much flatter so allow a return the position where the employer/employee relationship was a symbiotic one and not exploitative as it is now.
Look at the examples set by John Lewis and Richer Sounds. These prove that you can have successful businesses and have a balance between profit and responsibility.
---------- Post added at 15:46 ---------- Previous post was at 15:44 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
Purple""I believe that we are wandering away from the topic somewhat. Possibly this is a discussion for a whole new thread?
|
Sounds a good idea. Can you move these posts to a new thread titled "Capitalism: still fit for purpose?" or should I open one myself?