INEQUALITY
Why are young people flocking to socialism?
My monicker is long: Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer. I created that handle years ago in self-defense after my umpteenth speech to an environmental organization (this includes organic farmers) where everyone assumed I was a flaming liberal since I didn't use chemicals. After all, Christians are conquistador rapist exploiters, don't you know.
Unlike greenie-weenie tree huggers who exploit Congolese children to dig lithium and build batteries about as hazardous as nuclear waste. So here we are in these ever-changing hypocrisies. Isn't life full of them? Try as we might, we can hardly escape practical hypocrisies. I'm guilty; we're all guilty of philosophical inconsistencies.
I've talked with some in-the-know republicans in the last week. They all agree on one thing: "we're getting shellacked at mid-terms." Bernie Sanders' haranguing about the 1 percent is permeating our culture dramatically.
The Wall Street Journal recently doubled down with an Op-Ed about the value of CEOs who make hundreds of millions of dollars a year. We're in football season--look at coaches' salaries, both professional and college.
Here is an amazing statistic I saw recently. In 1965, the average ratio difference between CEOs and employees was 20:1. In other words, if you worked for an outfit making $30,000, the CEO got $600,000. Do you know what it is today? 300:1. In other words, if you work for a company today earning $40,000, the CEO gets $12,000,000 (12 million).
I realize this is average and not your small community mom-and-pop businesses, but these are the figures that dominate the news because these global outfits own the news organizations.
May I ask a simple question? Does anyone need more than $500,000 a year in salary? Really? Now before you capitalist-libertarian readers think I've gone to some Marxist dark side, I would never advocate for a legal cap or any involvement whatsoever from politicians to interfere with these ratios.
What I think is valuable is to challenge anybody making more than $500,000 per year, especially here at Christmas, to think about what massive compensation packages look like to regular folks. If I ever make that kind of money, I want to give it to my team members--yes, that's employees. Share. Give it up.
This is a moral and ethical position. The rich must realize that when this level of disparity exists in a culture, it foments resentment and eventually vengeance. Self-preservation, it seems to me, demands a more charitable and gracious outlook toward amassing wealth.
How much is enough? Does it always have to be more, more, more? I can't imagine stepping onto an elevator in a big company knowing I'm making $12 million and the guys and gals around me are making $40,000. I couldn't look at myself in a mirror.
I challenge our culture to adopt a more gracious posture. What if all these high paid individuals divested their incomes to people under them? Would young people be as vituperative about inequality? Would they scream as much 1 percenters and affordability? I don't think so. Folks, we don't have a political and legislative problem; we have a moral and ethical problem.
Ben Franklin, as America's envoy in France, talked up the new country's greatest identity versus the European model as enjoying an egalitarian sense among the populace. Think about Versailles compared to the common peasant. Franklin lauded the American counterpart where he said the rich were not so rich and the poor were not so poor. That's our country's founding and if we don't return to it, morally and ethically, we will destroy ourselves with vengeance.
Does anyone need more than $500,000 a year?
