In 2004 a Swiss banker called the upper class’ demand for increasingly high salaries as “a call to class warfare from above.” (Baer) The new decade has seen outcry against a growing discrepancy in wealth. The global financial crisis exacerbated the already prominent fiscal divide. Ideological thinkers have been wrestling with resolution of this exact divide for centuries. Modernly Switzerland has attempted to regulate monetary divides by banning bonuses and mandating shareholder consent in major decisions. A recent proposition also suggested implementing an initiative that “would permit companies to award their best-paid worker no more than 12 times what the worst paid.” (Stamm) This measure invokes sentiments similar to those invoked by historic ideologies. The societal problems that Locke and Bernstein attempted to address with Liberalism and Social Democracy respectively manifest in the recent discussion surrounding the Swiss salary initiatives. This validates the relevancy of their ideological arguments because societal issues of private property, the value of labour, and ethical concerns surrounding wealth persist in current political discourse.
The current questions of ostentatious wealth, fiscal practices, and salary settings, which are being discussed in Switzerland, invite for examination through the lens of John Locke’s liberalism. Principles of liberal ideology and ideas articulated in Locke’s own writings are applicable to both sides of the argument. Some in Switzerland have advocated that companies would leave or not be attracted to develop in the country because of new laws. Johann Scheider-Ammann, the head of the Swiss Department of the Economy, Education and Research, noted that failing to pass the law "will ...
... middle of paper ...
... He may also critique the gross over-payment, which arguably distances the direct ties between labour and payment value. Bernstein would most likely support the measure, which is ethically inclined and democratic in nature signifying an evolution to socialism out of capitalism. Both perspectives offer beneficial arguments, which remain pertinent to the modern search for modest and reasonable acquisition of wealth, and global financial security.
Works Cited
Baer, H. (2004). It's not all about money: memoirs of a private banker.
Bernstein, E. (1909). Evolutionary socialism.
Locke, J. (1689). Second treatise of government. (Paragraph 33).
Maclucas, N. (2013, Nov 24). Swiss voters reject high-pay initiative referendum to limit executive pay overwhelmingly rejected. Wall Street Journal
Stamm, P. (2013, Nov 22). Why the Swiss scorn the superrich. New York Times
Going back to 1978, the typical male worker was making around 48,000 dollars per year while the average person in the wealthy group of the 1 percent earned 390,000 dollars per year. By 2010, the typical male worker earned less than in 1978 whereas the person in the top 1 percent earned more than twice as much as before. Today in America, 400 people have more wealth than half the population of the United States. Reich explains that a strong middle class is what gives our economy stability. This leads to the fact, that 70 percent of the economy is based on the consumer. If the middle class’ wages declin...
Time and time again we hear politicians and office holders preach the need for a powerful middle-class. You may then be surprised to hear that “about 82% of America’s net worth belongs to the top 20%, the next 80% of people only own about 18% of America’s wealth” (UCSC). Some may argue that this disproportion is the beauty of capitalism, the chance to create an empire. I argue that the proportions are simply unfair. Why is it that “ the average CEO makes 350X as much as his/her employee” (UCSC)?
Ehrenreich states “…the United States, for all its wealth, leaves its citizens to fend for themselves — facing market-based rents, for example, on their wages alone. For millions of Americans, that $10 — or even $8 or $6 — hourly wage is all there is.” (Ehrenreich 214) A large portion of us human beings in society today, only care about making money to benefit ourselves rather than those less fortunate. People who have worked their entire lives on low wages may never experience luxuriousness due to the greed of our employers and government. Those graced with a generous amount of money tend to leave others in need of assistance, thusly causing inhuman nature to develop within our communities. Ehrenreich experiences this when she found out that her own self-esteem lowered at the hands of her employers who treated their workers as disposable. These employers as well as their companies, devalue a worker to essentially keep them powerless against them. Many of the job interviews she had gone through avoided any discussion of wages because, the employers wanted to keep the paychecks at a bare minimum. In most situations within our community workplace, a worker is not compensated correctly for his or her labor. Most of the human beings today would do just anything to stay wealthy, even if it means devaluing another. Most of our society spends their lifetimes
Year’s ago, mention of this widening gap between the privileged and the struggling was considered “Marxist”, but now the facts are too evident to be blamed on a belief. The richer continue to get richer and the poorer get poorer; due to the fact that, the wealthy pay the labor working majority unfair wages. Ironically, this “supreme” group makes their fortune because of these under paid people. For example, Walmart a low paying corporation owned by the wealthiest family in America. As previously stated, the success of the upper class is at the expense of the lower class and we see this in more ways then one: late fees and rates are collected by the rich, Realestate is bought up by them, and they have control of politics. The solution seen most fit by Ehrenreich and Lowenstein would be to remove the classes and have an egalitarian
...o conclude with, the worst fate is waiting for rich people in Marx’s “Communist manifesto”, and is explained by 2 factors: mismanagement of given resources and negative result in the class struggle between the poor and the rich. Reich, on the contrary, argues that the wealthiest people, these are the symbolic analysts, will thrive due to the higher demand for their services and better technologies. Both authors see the capital factor in different lights and predict the rich to either succeed with the help of it, or lose because of its mismanagement. Meanwhile Reich does not mention any tension among different classes Marx sees the doom of the rich in its defeat to proletariat. Nevertheless, considering that Reich describes modern times and having witnessed the fall of USSR, a model of Marxist regime, should we incline more to Reich’s predictions on the rich’s fate?
Piketty’s Capital makes the case for a wealth tax on the capital and high labour incomes of the elite. He reasons on both economic and moral grounds as to the effectiveness of this measure to combat the “fatal flaw” of capitalism; its inherent tendency to concentrate wealth in the hands of an elite few. This recommendation comes after 577 pages of deep analytics performed on a dataset of wealth levels and wealth concentrations in France, the United Kingdom and the United States since 1820, 1855 and 1850, respectively. Piketty then derives a wealth-income ratio by dividing wealth at a certain time by corresponding national income to perform a like-for-like comparison across the regions. It pays to note that Piketty makes no distinction between wealth (the stock of one’s assets less liabilities) and capital, this difference is most often minute but can bring up difficulty when considering that capital is valued at its marginal product and wealth at the market
In 2003 the average pay for CEOs at 200 of the largest U.S. companies was $11.3 million--but there are a good number whose compensation packages approach the $100 million mark. Faced with these figures, Americans from all walks of life--who revile CEOs as greedy fat cats--are overcome with bewilderment and indignation. Astonished to learn that what an average worker earns in a year, some CEOs earn in less than a week--people ask themselves: "How can the work of a corporate paper-pusher be worth so many millions of dollars?"
In the United States there are four social classes : the upper class, the middle class, the working class, and the lower class. Of these four classes the most inequality exists between the upper class and the lower class. This inequality can be seen in the incomes that the two classes earn. During the period 1979 through the present , the growth in income has disproportionately grown.The bottom sixty percent of the US population actually saw their real income decrease in 1990 dollars. The next 20% saw medium gains. The top twenty percent saw their income increase 18%. The wealthiest one percent saw their incomes rise drastically over 80%. As reported in the 1997 Center on Budget's analysis , the wealthiest one percent of Americans ( 2.6 million people) received as much after-tax income in 1994 as the bottom 35 percent of the population combined (88 million people). But in 1977 the bottom 35 percent had about twice as much after tax income as the top one percent. These statistics further show the disproportional income growth among the social classes. The gr...
Unequal wealth distribution is a significant issue in the United States. The U.S. exhibits the widest disparity in wealth amongst developed countries by a substantial margin. (Government is Good, What is Really Wrong with Government”. This problem is on the uptick as the salaries of CEOs continue to increase astronomically while that of ordinary Americans stall and in some cases even decline. Not only is this matter an economic dilemma but it is also a social and political one as well. This fiasco has led many Americans to believe that the bank of justice has gone bankrupt.
Divisions within the social stratum is a characteristic of societies in various cultures and has been present throughout history. During the middle ages, the medieval feudal system prevailed, characterized by kings and queens reigning over the peasantry. Similarly, in today’s society, corporate feudalism, otherwise known as Capitalism, consists of wealthy elites dominating over the working poor. Class divisions became most evident during America’s Gilded Age and Progressive era, a period in time in which the rich became richer via exploitation of the fruits of labor that the poor persistently toiled to earn. As a result, many Americans grew compelled to ask the question on everyone’s mind: what do the rich owe the poor? According to wealthy
It is a well-known fact that many people holding high positions in companies make an exorbitant amount of money. Some, however, say that they do not deserve the amount that they are paid. They feel that for the amount of work that is done by these executives, their paycheck is simply too high. Also, they believe that these high paid workers often do a mediocre job, while still managing to reap the benefits of being an executive. While these are viable arguments against this issue, the other side of the spectrum shows that this is not so. There is an equal amount of evidence, if not more, that suggests that executives earn every penny of their paychecks. The CEOs of companies are under an extra...
Due to the noticeable difference between Proletariats and the Bourgeoisie, social relations came to be excessively discussed across the European continent. Many people adhered to the idea that individuals were members of economic...
For a few people to amass great wealth in a society is the highest expression of civilization. This is the base argument of Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” (1889) however he also explains the importance of philanthropy from those in the upper class, arguing that the wealthy entrepreneurs of society have a responsibility to distribute their excess wealth in a manner that proves to benefit society as a whole while avoiding wasting it on frivolous expenditures. Although claiming that the income gap between social classes has played an important role in society, Carnegie believes that the incredibly uneven distribution of wealth can be mitigated by the upper and lower classes working together to gain a mutually beneficial outcome. With an extending argument, Carl Becker seeks to explain in his article “Ideal Democracy” (1941), what his idea of the ideal democracy is, which he defines as “of the people, by the people, for the people” (148). However arguing that in today’s society, it is defined more so as “of the people, by the politicians, for whatever pressure groups can get their interests taken care of.” (148).This paper will serve to analyze the relative strengths and weaknesses of each text’s argument and supporting material. In doing so we will touch on the rhetorical strategies and structure that each text employs, while connecting them together through comparison. Becker argues that democracy has changed over time, while Carnegie extends this argument by stating the change will be beneficial to the human race.
In his work, Marx presents the amount of power exchange-values impose upon the economy, as he states “As use-values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange-values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use-values” (Marx 54). It is with this analysis that Marx is able to present the link between labor and the productions that result from a worker 's dedication. As a result, it becomes evident that exchange-values possess an extraordinary amount of influence with regards to the worth of an object and a worker’s salary. However, this worth changes with time and depends on the usefulness of the product. This is especially made evident when analyzing the twenty-first century business world. In 2015 a report by Sorensen was published, discussing the role of exchange-values in the American economic-system. Thus, demonstrating the neglect of use-values, while highlighting the power of exchange-value as Sorensen writes, “Most
However, majority of scholars argue that the problem of excessive compensation should never be addressed via legislation. It is argued that involving the legislature would end up creating more problems than solutions (WAGNER, 2012). This is largely because it is never easy to set a standard guideline as to how much a CEO should receive. Companies that are doing fairly well prefer to pay their CEOs highly. Likewise, with the increasing technological advancements and innovations, companies seem to be performing much better than the previous years. Improvement in performance translates into increased CEO salaries and compensations. All in all, internal regulatory bodies should be created to ensure that these compensations are not too extreme (WAGNER,