I just read this blog, and you are hitting the problem right on the dot: It is because this uneven playing field or as you put it “when everyone starts on equal footing” that causes some people to have distinct advantages or for the poor; disadvantages.

Keep up the good work my friend, you are a bright young man, and we need more people like you on our team!

Inequality in this and other nations exist, but to blame it solely on merit or work ethic undermines some of the underlying causes. In one of my earlier blogs, I mentioned the people who I worked with at McDonald’s and their life stories. Some of them seemed very brilliant. But alas, they work at a low-paying job because they had no other choice. I’ll highlight one of many examples: when she was in high school, my shift manager’s parents died of cancer. With no one else to turn to, she sacrificed her opportunity of getting a higher education in order to work and support her younger siblings. As a result of working nearly full-time, she could not dedicate herself to the higher education most of us take for granted. Given her incredible leadership skills, kindheartedness, and especially her incredible wit, I would not dismiss her as “lazy”. Of course, on the island, the people who work harder are better off. But that is when everyone starts on an equal footing. In reality, that is not the case at all. So while I do agree with you that many people do not progress in society because they do not believe in hard work, I reject the fact that all people are poor because they brought it upon themselves.

This is where the rich can help. If we can redistribute money so that it is not concentrated on the wealthiest, we can redirect those resources to improving the lives of others. Let’s start with people like my shift manager. If she had been provided with better resources in her past, she probably would not have had to drop out of school. Instead, she would have more time to devote to her studies, ultimately resulting in a much better position in life for her to grow intellectually, start a family, and contribute to society in some meaningful way. But we must give people like her an opportunity to pursue her career goals first. And they way our society is built, the currency of opportunity is usually money.

And I think the issues of poverty in other countries can be addressed, to some degree, by income inequality and the concentration of wealth. These social issues definitely exist in all corners of the globe and a combination of ability and (mostly) opportunity are to blame. You ask at the end what the ideal world entails. But does that ideal really fit our model of society? Or am I just being too optimistic about the least fortunate among us?

I would just like to leave another comment to think about.

OK, I agree that most CEO’s would do tremendously well with half or even 1/10 of what they make, which is true of most top sport players, but let’s leave them apart for now.

Do the rest of the employees really need that extra 10% to 20% that they could receive if the CEO decided to raise salaries, instead of getting that huge annual bonus?

Would these people be actually happier?

What are the needs that minimum-wage Americans are not fulfilling because they’re making minimum wage?

Allow me to make a comparison with my country of birth, Mexico, which is by no means the poorest country in the world. The minimum wage there is about $133 USD a month. This is less than Americans on welfare get, isn’t it? And let me tell you that the 3 largest cities in Mexico are more expensive to live in than Austin is, for example.

Now, these people really don’t have much of a chance to get access to even public education, because they are too busy working to buy food and clothes. They need to forget about more advanced needs like professional realization or contributing to society.

Oh and by the way, do you remember who the richest man in the world is? That’s right, Mexican Carlos Slim according to Forbes. And he get most of his riches from cellular service company America Movil, in part because one need most people in Mexico need to fulfill is having a cell phone (>90 million cell phone lines in a 112 million people country)

The point of this comparison is that inequalities exist and are even worse if you consider the whole world. I do agree with you on the belief that inequalities are totally exaggerated and ridiculous these days, but let’s face it inequalities exist because people are diverse.

Think about this, if tomorrow you would leave 100 people in a desert island, with nothing more than their clothes on, the day after, some will have more than others because some will choose to work and others won’t. Some will find more intelligent ways to get mangoes or coconuts so they will get more than others, typically through leadership and influence. And then, others will find what some people are missing and will provide them with the missing items in exchange for other items or even for work.

In the end, what is closer to and ideal world? One in which everybody has the same or one in which everybody own what they deserve according to their virtues?

I’d say it’s the second one, and if it is, then I would worry more about violent people taking by force what they are too lazy to work for, rather than about people who have great influence on others and get unproportionate benefits from it.

That’s a great point you bring up. Yes, of course the CEO’s and other rich folks have to spend their money. I mean they would serve no good if they simply flaunt their change around. They will undoubtedly spend their money, just not on the less expensive material goods that I and other low/middle class folks would purchase.

You seem to imply that trickle-down economics would be the best solution to this economic crisis. While if this were an ideal world, I might be more tempted to have such faith that companies would be willing to invest their resources in their workers. But in the world we live in, the money spent by these CEO’s on luxury goods goes to the company, which in turn pays the CEO’s of that company. Why pay their workers? Sure, one might have a good heart and decide to shower their employees in bonuses with the extra money from tax cuts. But in this economy, the workers are at the mercy of the company. Workers struggle to keep their jobs in fear of unemployment. Companies that hire them play off this fear: they don’t have to pay their workers exorbitant wages since they have nowhere else to turn to find work. So with the extra money, why not pay the people who run the company instead, the people who wield a disproportional amount of power? The money cycles among the rich (from CEO to company to CEO to company, with little else in between), leaving only a few droplets, if any, of benefits for the rest of us.

The opportunities of getting rich in this country are receding as we speak. This used to be a country of dreams, but now, it has become a country of the powerful bosses who puppeteer the powerless majority.

In response to your last statements, I would rather work for a company whose CEO does not take millions of dollars in bonuses while leaving his/her employees in the dust. If I were to create employment positions (are you implying a hypothetical that I am a CEO in your final question?), the excess money that would fund my gargantuan salary and pay for my lambos and 50-room mansions would instead go to my fellow employees. I would never allow corruption and greed to elevate my status in society at the expense of the rest.

Thanks for helping me clarify my opinions, Daniel! Feel free to reply with another comment. I would be glad to keep this discussion going.

First of all, I have to tell you that I do support the Occupy Movement.
Let’s Occupy the Tower!!!

However I’d like to direct your attention to some superficial statements you are writing about. For example: What do you mean when you say that these CEO’s “share almost none of their income with other Americans”?

In an attempt to understand what’s going on with this money I will assume for a moment that this money could only have three avenues from here. It may be going to the purchase of luxurious goods, it could be going to investments or it could be going to below the mattress. Of all these options, the last one does not seem rational since even buying treasuries will get you some interest back with “theoretically” no risk.

Now, if they are buying luxurious goods, then they are giving this money back to Americans who provide luxurious goods and services. These Americans typically generate employment through their companies since rich people do not provide products or services personally. That is being done by middle and lower income people employed by business owners.

If it is the case that this rich person is investing his money, then he is giving back to society too. He is financing some company that needs the money to keep in business so they can pay their employees’ salaries as well as their suppliers.

If it was the last case that all the money they are making goes under the mattress, then I would totally agree with you that they are not sharing their money. But I believe that this is the most stupid behavior and it is not likely that a CEO that makes millions of dollars would have such an ignorant attitude towards money.

In conclusion, most of us are not rich, but especially in the United States, there are a lot of opportunities to become rich if someone wants to give it a try. However becoming rich implies a lot of sacrifices many of us are not willing to commit to. Yes, being rich has its perks and yes many rich people live wasting resources in a stupid way. But what most of them have in common is that they need to have their money invested in order to stay rich.

Hey, all I am saying is that as a Biochemical Engineer you are most likely going to be working for a company that belongs or is controlled by rich people. And if you do, you would prefer that the company does not pay too much taxes if that allows it to stay in business, because that will allow you to keep your job and your salary. I will however turn it over to you and ask you: how many employment positions are you willing to create during your future professional life?