Are wealthy countries in anyway responsible to lift poor countries out of poverty?

[DENNYINMI]

Trump drives a hard bargain.

The greatest temptations are not those that solicit our consent to obvious sin, but those that offer us great evils masking as the greatest goods…Thomas Merton

 

[Socrates92]

Four of the Walton family are worth about a $160 billion between them, and their employees don’t really earn enough to bring up a family. Even if they gave all their employees a thousand dollar bonus, that would come to about $1.6 billion, that would be about one percent of their wealth. They wouldn’t even notice it had gone.

If a Walmart employee isn’t capable of bringing up a family, a one-time $1000 bonus isn’t going to do much to help him. What struggling family heads need is sustained long-term higher wages brought about through sustained higher productivity. These higher wages could take the form of literal wage increases, or the form of higher “real” wages, where a dollar buys more than before due to falling prices. Leaving aside the fact that they are actively thwarted by stupid government fiscal and monetary policies, Walmart is much more effective focussing on the second thing - producing low cost goods.

I’d also question the wisdom of starting a family while working a Walmart job, but that’s another topic.

 

[Socrates92]

I know farmers who receive government aid who complain about socialist government programs. Go figure.

You have to play the game with the rules as they are. I’m a Canadian student, receiving OSAP aid, who complains about socialist government programs. The kicker is that opting out isn’t really an option. I can reject government funding, but I can’t reject the higher tuition costs which are enabled through that funding.

 

[Socrates92]

Even thought it would be positive if they would leave, the violence it would take makes it a questionable proposition.

I’m not convinced that such an overthrow wouldn’t fall under the category of just war. The leaders are undeniably evil, as are the effects of their evil policies. Violently removing them as an act of defense probably wouldn’t make things any worse for the oppressed people. Therefore, it also meets the principle of double effect in my opinion.

 

[Socrates92]

My current opinion is that it wouldn’t be morally wrong to interfere violently with Venezuela’s leadership. Whether it would be prudent, politically, or whether we would be obliged to do so, of course, is another question.

 

[Socrates92]

I’m not referring to Donald Trump or all wealthy people but look at ex Australia Post CEO Ahmed Fahour and his 30 Million dollar mansion for example-who needs a 30 million dollar house while others are on “struggle street”?

The “who needs” approach always seemed silly to me. Who “needs” anything beyond basic subsistence? The majority of people living in 1st world countries possess vastly more than what many poorer people around the world would consider “needs”. To be logically consistent, I think we have to question the extravagance of anyone living beyond a very modest lifestyle. Most middle-class people fall in this category. Otherwise, the argument just smacks of envy.

 

[Socrates92]

I am sure the Waltons innovations were good, but they fail to reward their staff for making it happen.

Frankly, the staff aren’t the primary ones responsible for those innovations. The Waltons were. It doesn’t make any more sense to reward them than it does to reward a random guy on the street.

 

[Augustinian]

Frankly, the staff aren’t the primary ones responsible for those innovations. The Waltons were. It doesn’t make any more sense to reward them than it does to reward a random guy on the street.

Good point. Walmart associates work no harder than folks at Kmart, Sears or Penney’s. Its just a random coincidence that they are working for a successful business instead of one which is failing.because of a lack of innovation. Should they really be rewarded for dumb luck, or should Kmart people be punished for the same?

 

[Socrates92]

The answer is neither, of course. Both KMart, and Walmart employees have very little stake in their company’s success, and therefore it makes sense that they are insulated from both the rewards and punishments resulting from business decisions at the top. If KMart fails, those employees can fairly easily apply at Walmart where they will be compensated the same.

 

[Socrates92]

I support progressive taxes for the same reason I support environmental regulations; a lot of wealthy people are no doubt genuinely good, charitable folk but not all.

I’d argue that the fact that people are not generally generous of their own volition more supports a flat tax system. If all rich people were perfectly generous, their would ignore the disincentives of progressive taxes and produce the most possible just out of sheer generosity. Given that the fact that they are not, it makes sense to have a system that actually promotes growth, assuming that everyone acts in their own self-interest (Ie: a flat tax system).

 

[Socrates92]

That’s a hypothesis, but not a logical thing to outright assume. Not every company is that mobile. Most startups require a lot of initial investment to start. If it proves unprofitable, most businesses can’t just quit the country directly after going bankrupt, raise large amounts of capital(again), and just start again that easily.

 

[Socrates92]

Maybe… not sure. I think at the very least, such NGOs should at least practise complete transparency in how they run the org. If they make all the info available: compensation packages, what each executive puts in to justify that compensation, a rough cost-benefit analysis, etc. It is wrong if people are under the false impression that the CEO is working for a pittance, and the NGO decides to capitalize on that misconception. If it’s laid out in broad daylight though, and donors can judge for themselves whether their dollar is sufficiently contributing to the stated aim, then I see no inherent issue in a CEO making whatever salary the board decides is best.

 

[Socrates92]

Whether or not the NGO CEO himself should accept certain compensation and what he does with said compensation is, IMO, a different question from how the charity itself should decide on a compensation. It may be the most prudent (and hence objectively best) thing an NGO to pay its CEO $10M, but perhaps that given CEO should, in good conscience, volunteer to work for less. Or not. That’s a matter for that individual CEO to address with his spiritual advisor (assuming he’s a practising Catholic…), and in itself has no bearing on how the charity should address it’s side of the deal.

 

[Socrates92]

If the ceo wants to earn 250k then go and look for a business opportunity. People give time and money to a charity to help people in need, not to make some rich guy feel good; that he is earning loads of money helping poor people.

Pragmatically speaking, these are not mutually exclusive aims. You are undermining the potential of a charity by not allowing them to make the decision how best to their stated aims. If the most effective way to do it is to pay a CEO 250K (frankly that’s a pretty small sum for a CEO), as opposed to hiring the next best candidate who’s willing to work for 50K, then they should be allowed to make that decision.

 

[Socrates92]

I won’t give my time or money to a charity that pays its ceo 250k.

Which is a perfectly legitimate standpoint. But your personal dislike isn’t itself much of an argument against the practise.

 

[Rozellelily]

I personally don’t know much about Walmart as I am not from America but generally don’t these stores that sell low cost goods harm the other businesses in that country?

For example we have Kmart and Target here who sell poor quality goods for next to nothing and it harms local businesses because many people will shop at the low price department stores and it pushes out smaller local businesses because they can’t compete with the price point.

If these businesses shut down then I thought that is bad for Australian economy (in this case) and therefor lowers living standards and increases unemployment rate?

 

[Rozellelily]

They should be allowed to make that decision but it should be publicly publicised openly and widely what they are getting paid so that donaters can make an informed decision.

 

[Rozellelily]

I’m not looking at it from a perspective of envy.
Personally I don’t want a $30 million mansion and would be uncomfortable having one knowing that there was such a difference in my living standards versus people in poverty,whether Aboriginals in this country or poor in other countries etc…
How could I,in good conscience,feel ok living like that.Why feel comfortable to live in such lavishness,when realistically none of us can take it with us once we are dead.
In such a circumstance,why not have a $2 or 3 million dollar house (it’s still a great thing) and use the rest of the money to better people’s lives who are in need?

As the bible says “You cannot serve both God and mammon”.
It reminds me of the story Lazarus and the Rich man.Who is this story and its warnings against opulent self indulgence then directed to if not to people like this?
Sure there are differences in living standards everywhere as your point mentions,but they aren’t to this extreme.

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2019/09/27/lazarus-the-rich-man-and-the-sin-of-pride/

 

[Theo520]

I’m not looking at it from a perspective of envy.
Personally I don’t want a $30 million mansion and would be uncomfortable having one knowing that there was such a difference in my living standards versus people in poverty,whether Aboriginals in this country or poor in other countries etc…

It’s not like rich people have all their mattresses stuffed with cash, it’s invested in businesses that need the capital to operate and created the jobs and fill market requirements.

If you build a mansion then you paid a lot in wages to have the materials created and have the place built, much of that money went to blue collar wages.

It’s preferred that rich people spend wealth since that too feeds the economy and creates jobs, much better than if they just sit on their wealth in cash or perhaps gold. Hire aboriginals to work in your enterprises, that’s teaching them how to fish instead of just giving them a fish.

 

[Socrates92]

I agree.

Oh, and 10 characters.