Pope attacks mega-salaries and wealth gap in peace message

[LisaA]

I have no problem with the state stepping in when it is necessary to protect the safety of the child in the cases of abuse or neglect.

I’ve been involved with quite a few cases like this. Most of the time it is due to addictions. Rarely do the parents get the children back. Drugs/alcohol/boyfriends end up being more important to them than their kids. The sad part is the children end up with some severe issues, because even in cases of great harm, they have attachment to the parents. It doesn’t seem to matter how great the family is that took the kids in, they still end up following the path of their parents. Some of the kids go on to have their own children removed and so on.

Exactly what I saw as a children’s advocate. It’s ingrained and generational. You grieve for the poor children who may never have normal lives whether or not mom gets them back. My first case was a single mom of five kids, three different fathers, the father of the two youngest sexually molested the middle daughter Her oldest daughter had dropped out of high school and had a baby…lived on food stamps, TANF etc. Oldest son got his girlfriend pregnant, also dropped out and they were living together at last word but not happily. Mom was a meth addict and her then BF (not the father of any of the kids) got her into selling as well. The children had been taken away and returned several times… UGH. When I first got the case the profile indicated that HER mom had done the same thing…

Stopping this self destructive cycle is the only way to help the next generation…but for the most part hands are tied as the courts favor the bio mom no matter how incompetent.

Lisa

 

[markomalley]

I think the verdict of history is in on this one: wherever capitalism exists, income disparity exists. You can’t point to a society with a capitalist economy without a significant gap in wealth between rich and poor.

Leo XIII:From Quod Apostolici Muneris

The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, “from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named.”[8] But the minds of princes and their subjects are, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, bound up one with the other in such a manner, by mutual duties and rights, that the thirst for power is restrained and the rational ground of obedience made easy, firm, and noble.​

…the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate.
From *Rerum Novarum*There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community.​

No matter what changes may occur in forms of government, there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State. Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them. Some there must be who devote themselves to the work of the commonwealth, who make the laws or administer justice, or whose advice and authority govern the nation in times of peace, and defend it in war. Such men clearly occupy the foremost place in the State, and should be held in highest estimation, for their work concerns most nearly and effectively the general interests of the community.
​

From Pius XII, Christmas Message, 1944:

In a people worthy of the name all inequalities based not on whim but on the nature of things, inequalities of culture, possessions, social standing – without, of course, prejudice to justice and mutual charity – do not constitute any obstacle to the existence and the prevalence of a true spirit of union and brotherhood.

On the contrary, so far from impairing civil equality in any way, they give it its true meaning; namely, that, before the state everyone has the right to live honorably his own personal life in the place and under the conditions in which the designs and dispositions of Providence have placed him.
​

From John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis

It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. **Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” **In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of “psychological” emigration.
​

Also, please note Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique as well as John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram (38-40).

I am not, repeat not, trying to use those as an excuse for an excessively compensated CEO cheating a line worker from his/her wages or, for that matter, artificially depressing salaries through despicable actions like bringing in lower-paid illegal aliens or fraudulently asserting a lack of talent in a justification for H1B visas…or the like. But the mere existence of inequality, at least if one would believe Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, or John Paul II, is not the issue. What those with wealth do with their money and how they treat their subordinates is the issue. Do they respect the inherent human dignity of their subordinates? And so on. If they do, then I congratulate them. If they don’t, well, no government power in the world will stop them from cheating if they wish to cheat.

 

[seekerz]

Perhaps you both are confusing insults directed toward the failed liberal approaches to dealing with poverty with insults toward the poor. I find insulting the attitude that says, “unless you agree with my solutions to poverty, you are insulting the poor.” You really shouldn’t demonize those with whom you disagree, Seekerz.

Ishii

As Catholics, we should be standing against ANY insults.

I was not talking about criticism of any approach to poverty - I was referring to the demeaning way that some were referring to poor people.

Since I did not give a single example, but my comment has created such a furor, I guess we all understand exactly what I was talking about.

And I will repeat my thanks to the Pope for setting us straight on this score.

 

[stevegravy]

Leo XIII:
From Quod Apostolici Muneris

The inequality of rights and of power proceeds from the very Author of nature, “from whom all paternity in heaven and earth is named.”[8] But the minds of princes and their subjects are, according to Catholic doctrine and precepts, bound up one with the other in such a manner, by mutual duties and rights, that the thirst for power is restrained and the rational ground of obedience made easy, firm, and noble.​

…the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate.
From Rerum Novarum
There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community.​

No matter what changes may occur in forms of government, there will ever be differences and inequalities of condition in the State. Society cannot exist or be conceived of without them. Some there must be who devote themselves to the work of the commonwealth, who make the laws or administer justice, or whose advice and authority govern the nation in times of peace, and defend it in war. Such men clearly occupy the foremost place in the State, and should be held in highest estimation, for their work concerns most nearly and effectively the general interests of the community.
​

From Pius XII, Christmas Message, 1944:

In a people worthy of the name all inequalities based not on whim but on the nature of things, inequalities of culture, possessions, social standing – without, of course, prejudice to justice and mutual charity – do not constitute any obstacle to the existence and the prevalence of a true spirit of union and brotherhood.

On the contrary, so far from impairing civil equality in any way, they give it its true meaning; namely, that, before the state everyone has the right to live honorably his own personal life in the place and under the conditions in which the designs and dispositions of Providence have placed him.
​

From John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei socialis

It should be noted that in today’s world, among other rights, the right of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is important not only for the individual but also for the common good. **Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an alleged “equality” of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises, not so much a true equality as a “leveling down.” **In the place of creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only “ordering” and “decision-making” body - if not also the “owner”- of the entire totality of goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of “psychological” emigration.
​

Also, please note Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique as well as John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram (38-40).

I am not, repeat not, trying to use those as an excuse for an excessively compensated CEO cheating a line worker from his/her wages or, for that matter, artificially depressing salaries through despicable actions like bringing in lower-paid illegal aliens or fraudulently asserting a lack of talent in a justification for H1B visas…or the like. But the mere existence of inequality, at least if one would believe Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, John XXIII, or John Paul II, is not the issue. What those with wealth do with their money and how they treat their subordinates is the issue. Do they respect the inherent human dignity of their subordinates? And so on. If they do, then I congratulate them. If they don’t, well, no government power in the world will stop them from cheating if they wish to cheat.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::tiphat:

 

[seekerz]

Like I said, we can discuss what is a fair wage, but if your plan was to come here, get a job, then demand more because the job doesn’t support the life you have chosen, you have a horrible plan, and need to take some responsibility for those decisions.

I heard you and I still disagree. No matter who you are or where you come from the right to a living wage remains the same. The Bible has recurring themes of protection for the rights of the weak (orphan/widow/foreigner) and the poor. I guess our Maker understands how much repetition is needed to convince us He really means something He says.

As I have said before, as long as you and I are willing to pay for the rate hikes in the form of prices, I don’t mind. Because the only way it will ever happen is from higher food prices, or fewer jobs/hours. Expecting it to come from anything else is silly. No share holder is going to front the money for the company’s stock if the value continually drops due to a thinner profit margin. Shedding these stocks in turns usually leads to downsizing, which isn’t going to help anyone.

Again, I see this theme (and you are correct, that IS the way it works in our system) of untouchable profit margins and I hear the words of the Pope, exhorting us not to idolize money. I wonder who is responsible for those profit margins if not the very people being exploited through unfair wages…? It is disconcerting to see the very engines of profit-making being treated as if they were sitting on the sidewalk holding out their hats. I don’t care if that sort of treatment is the bedrock of capitalism (and NO, I don’t believe it actually is) - it is still wrong.

I will add that the small business owners I know personally are able somehow to run profitable companies and STILL treat their workers (both in pay and in attitude) like valued assets. So perhaps we should be going out of our way to support such businesses.

 

[frobert]

As Catholics, we should be standing against ANY insults.

I was not talking about criticism of any approach to poverty - I was referring to the demeaning way that some were referring to poor people.

Since I did not give a single example, but my comment has created such a furor, I guess we all understand exactly what I was talking about.

And I will repeat my thanks to the Pope for setting us straight on this score.

I went to your original post and am re-posting it here. I believe it is a post that each of us can examine in our own hearts and minds to determine for ourselves if our personal attitude towards the poor is uncharitable.

Thanks for the quote. What stands out to me is the “contempt for” the “weakest” and those considered “useless”. In the last year or two, it has hit me like a ton of bricks - this contempt of which the Pope speaks. The uncharitable attitude and frank insults directed at the poor have really been disturbing to me; people, even in the public arena, discussing the poor like the objects of their attacks cannot hear the condescending, dismissive narrative being used to blame them for their own poverty or disadvantage. What makes it even more disturbing is the deafening silence from those who are in a position to say “stop, this isn’t right”. Thank you Papa Francisco.

Thank you the post.

 

[stinkcat_14]

stinkcat you had me until you pulled out the Haliburton meme. Haven’t you heard it’s not what you know but who you know that counts? MANY people are hired because of their connections.

I find that rather amusing. I suppose if I would have said Franklin Raines it would have been fine with you. I am sorry but I don’t buy the republican=virtuous, democrat=corrupt. I think they are both corrupt. But the main point, is that if a CEO is hired because of connections, then that is not true capitalism that is crony capitalism and what is the merit in crony capitalism?

Do you have the same resentment of baseball players or rap “singers?” People earn what the market will bear so to speak. There are only a few Michael Jordan’s out there and only a few Steve Jobs…maybe only one!

What makes you think that my questions are coming because of resentment? I have no resentment regarding what people make, but I can see moral flaws in the systems of compensation and that is something that is fair game for discussion. Actually, I see little moral problems in what most sports athletes are paid or entertainers for that matter. In the old days before free agency there was an issue with baseball, but that was solved long ago.

But please tell me what the CEO of a public company’s salary, however ridiculous has to do with the causes of poverty in America?

The discussion is about morality within our economy, so it is fair game for discussion.

 

[SuperLuigi]

As Catholics, we should be standing against ANY insults.

I was not talking about criticism of any approach to poverty - I was referring to the demeaning way that some were referring to poor people.

Since I did not give a single example, but my comment has created such a furor, I guess we all understand exactly what I was talking about.

Insulting anyone is a bad idea. My concern is that there’s a lot of people who say they care and are worried about the poor, but don’t do anything about it. Not only that, they seem to think its utterly impossible for a poor person to be scamming the system, especially in Western EU or North America.

Think about it----how would God look at someone who chooses sloth over trying to be productive?

The sins that get talked on CAF a lot are usually lust, greed or along the lines of an obligation.

Sloth is a sin too, and I think people can question the status of the “poor” especially in the USA in some cases because there’s a lot of people getting benefits to live a certain affluent lifestyle that could be going to someone who really need it.

And I will repeat my thanks to the Pope for setting us straight on this score.

But do you understand what the Pope is saying? Have you read it yourself or do you rely on corrupt journalists with an agenda to do the homework for you?

Are you angry

Let’s just that I’m irritated because I expect more from Catholics, and it’s safe to assume God does too since we have graces and the Truth.

No one should take that lightly.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am sorry but I don’t buy the republican=virtuous, democrat=corrupt. I think they are both corrupt.

You shouldn’t, but the issue that I have is that is often an excuse to vote for anti-Catholic politicians.

Really, I don’t think that conservatives on here are blindly loyal to capitalism. They seem to know what is going on, hence the TEA PARTY and notable absences at the 2012 ballot box.

But the main point, is that if a CEO is hired because of connections, then that is not true capitalism that is crony capitalism and what is the merit in crony capitalism?

No, because a lot of times if a person knows someone who will work hard and do a good job will be hired. That’s the regular market at work.

Crony capitalism is when the government, which is not subject to the free market, makes decisions for the market, picks winners and losers for political gain and gets into bed with business.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The discussion is about morality within our economy, so it is fair game for discussion.

Pretty dangerous for the government to legislate economic morality. That’s a great way to get crony capitalism on.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Pretty dangerous for the government to legislate economic morality. That’s a great way to get crony capitalism on.

When did I say that the government should legislate economic morality?

 

[HappyCatholic01]

On can appreciate a regulated for of capitalism and not be on the side of capitalists. I think the point in this papal statement is that we have too much institutionalized greed. Now the capitalist idea is that this works well and everyone is better off. I think that is ideal and we do not live in a world where the ideal works. Greed is probably our second greatest mortal sin in the world today. The ideal of capitalism will never work. Thus, we have this increasing wealth disparity between the rich and the poor. It is getting worse, not better. That is why I believe our economy to be sinful and disordered. American style capitalism, if one can even call it capitalism anymore is something I consider evil, to wit, when the rich and powerful can make the salaries they do and keep the working poor in poverty. I think they and those that support them may find themselves looking up at Lazarus one day.

That’s fine, but since the Church hasn’t come to your conclusion, people can take or leave it.

Capitalism has lifted more out of poverty than any system in history, anecdotally speaking. Greed can find a home in an unregulated system, be it capitalism or any other.

Unless we keep people at the center of our economic goals, something that the current administration clearly does not do, any system will lead us to ruin.

But to say you think anyone who supports American style capitalism (which is heavily regulated to the point of being ineffective) will end up in Hell is nonsense, and hardly Catholic teaching. Tell us who else you think will end up in Hell…

 

[frobert]

Unless we keep people at the center of our economic goals, something that the current administration clearly does not do, any system will lead us to ruin.

But to say you think anyone who supports American style capitalism (which is heavily regulated to the point of being ineffective) will end up in Hell is nonsense, and hardly Catholic teaching. Tell us who else you think will end up in Hell…

Agreed

Now lets stop saying that anyone will go to hell and leave that up to God. That also includes not speaking for God. I believe anyone one who claims to know God’s will (including who will go to hell) does so at his/her own peril.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Unless we keep people at the center of our economic goals, something that the current administration clearly does not do, any system will lead us to ruin.

Has any administration ever kept people at the center of its economic goals? Virtually all administrations have shown contempt for future generations by running up deficits.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I heard you and I still disagree. No matter who you are or where you come from the right to a living wage remains the same. The Bible has recurring themes of protection for the rights of the weak (orphan/widow/foreigner) and the poor. I guess our Maker understands how much repetition is needed to convince us He really means something He says.

Again, I see this theme (and you are correct, that IS the way it works in our system) of untouchable profit margins and I hear the words of the Pope, exhorting us not to idolize money. I wonder who is responsible for those profit margins if not the very people being exploited through unfair wages…? It is disconcerting to see the very engines of profit-making being treated as if they were sitting on the sidewalk holding out their hats. I don’t care if that sort of treatment is the b edrock of capitalism (and NO, I don’t believe it actually is) - it is still wrong.

I will add that the small business owners I know personally are able somehow to run profitable companies and STILL treat their workers (both in pay and in attitude) like valued assets. So perhaps we should be going out of our way to support such businesses.

You don’t have to convince me to avoid making money an idol; you have to convicne society, and deal in reality.

Convince a CEO who puts profits before people.

Convince someone using government benefits when they do not truly need them.

Convince black friday shoppers who stampede or riot over a television. Those generally are not the top 1% either.

Each CEO has a responsibility to treat their employees fairly and justly, and each employee has a responsibility to lead a life that allows them the best chance to be able to survive. In most cases, neither group does their part.

Whether you seem to think I am endorsing the outcome of a $15 minimum wage at McDonald’s. I am not endorsing it, just making you aware of the reality of what that leads to. Now if we can get every person in the world to hear the words of the Pope and take them to heart, we are all set.

We can’t even get Catholics on this website to agree with the Church’s teachings on numerous issues outside of finance - sexuality, marriage, contraception, governance. The world isn’t going to change any time soon.

So in the mean time, we have to find the best way care for people that doesn’t involve pretending predictable outcomes in the short term are not going to happen.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Has any administration ever kept people at the center of its economic goals? Virtually all administrations have shown contempt for future generations by running up deficits.

It is obvious to everyone who reads your posts you simply want to spend your time merely playing devil’s advocate to every post on here, never actually taking a side. But while you like to pretend everyone is equally bad for America, many of us see stark differences.

Regarding administrations, perhaps, and perhaps not, but much like the Republicans consistently get taken to task for their anti-abortion stance relative to not fully eliminating abortion, Democrats need to be taken to task for the mantra of caring for the poor and not doing anything of consequence except increase their numbers. If hypocrisy is good for one, it is good for both.

 

[frobert]

Has any administration ever kept people at the center of its economic goals? Virtually all administrations have shown contempt for future generations by running up deficits.

For those who haven’t figured it out. The only difference between Republicans and Democrats are the prejudices they use to sway their respective bases. Their true constituents are the big money donors, financial institutions, international and other large corporations.

 

[LisaA]

I find that rather amusing. I suppose if I would have said Franklin Raines it would have been fine with you. I am sorry but I don’t buy the republican=virtuous, democrat=corrupt. I think they are both corrupt. But the main point, is that if a CEO is hired because of connections, then that is not true capitalism that is crony capitalism and what is the merit in crony capitalism?

Since I didn’t say Republican=Virtuous and Democrat=Corrupt, there is no point in arguing that point…with me anyway. PEOPLE can be corrupt regardless of party, skin tone, or socioeconomic status. I don’t project any particular level of dishonesty because there’s a D behind a name although given the current regime is Democrats and has been marked by a stunning array of scandals, corruptions, and payoffs the D’s are in the spotlight now. Turn the clock back to my teenage years and everyone thought all Republicans were corrupt. We have a sinful nature, I think we can agree.

However you are dead wrong in claiming that hiring someone due to their connections is “crony” capitalism. I think frobert or someone provided a real definition of this term where government picks winners (Solyndra, Light Squared, GM) and losers—that would be TAXPAYERS as we watch our money sent down a rathole.

What Haliburton did in choosing Cheney was pick the person who brought what they deemed valuable to the company. If it was his executive skills or contacts or ability to do deals…no one used taxpayer money to hire the man. If Haliburton made a mistake, it was the shareholders who lost, not the taxpayers. Franklin Raines is a whole different kettle of fish and about as smelly. He DID get taxpayer money and defrauded we taxpayers out of billions. Why NO ONE WENT TO JAIL over the whole financial system collapse is a tribute to Eric Holder’s lack of interest in real crime. What I have to say about both of those corrupt sleazeballs could not be printed on this forum. They are both despicable.

I

What makes you think that my questions are coming because of resentment? I have no resentment regarding what people make, but I can see moral flaws in the systems of compensation and that is something that is fair game for discussion. Actually, I see little moral problems in what most sports athletes are paid or entertainers for that matter. In the old days before free agency there was an issue with baseball, but that was solved long ago.

Perhaps resentment isn’t the right word but shall I say you don’t seem to feel as outraged by someone throwing a ball or pretending that Rap is music making millions as you do about some high powered CEO. To the latter’s credit, at least he/she is running a company that employs people and provides a product or service vis a vis entertainment. Further I suspect because the Left is so associated with the glitterati whenever there is a reference to the evil stinkin’ rich it’s with respect to a corporate executive and likely one who’s involved in energy…I mean a stinkin’ rich oil executive is a Leftist’s most target rich environment.

When the same people screeching about Immelt or Gates makes the same observation about Jay Z or Kim Kardashian, I’ll take their complaints a little more seriously. Until then it’s just plain tiresome.

I

The discussion is about morality within our economy, so it is fair game for discussion.

Sure everything is fair game for discussion until the Mods come in and put us back on the reservation. But since the OP made specific reference to income gaps and wealth gaps based on overpaid executives, my focus has been to point out this isn’t particularly relevant to the underlying causes of poverty. Cutting CEO salaries isn’t going to help make Baby Daddy support his ten illegitimate kids or convince the dropout slacker who’s spending the day smoking weed to get off his butt and get a job.

It’s the culture that needs changing more than executive compensation.
Lisa

 

[LisaA]

It is obvious to everyone who reads your posts you simply want to spend your time merely playing devil’s advocate to every post on here, never actually taking a side. But while you like to pretend everyone is equally bad for America, many of us see stark differences.

Regarding administrations, perhaps, and perhaps not, but much like the Republicans consistently get taken to task for their anti-abortion stance relative to not fully eliminating abortion, Democrats need to be taken to task for the mantra of caring for the poor and not doing anything of consequence except increase their numbers. If hypocrisy is good for one, it is good for both.

Well said. I remember a quip that we know the Democrat party loves the poor because their policies have created so many of them!

But I agree that the other side talks about cutting spending, deficits, and reducing regulations but does precious little about it. Right now as minority party they have an excuse but you wonder where all the fiscal hawks were as we increased spending during the Bush years.

Lisa

 

[stinkcat_14]

Perhaps resentment isn’t the right word but shall I say you don’t seem to feel as outraged by someone throwing a ball or pretending that Rap is music making millions as you do about some high powered CEO.

Once again, you clearly don’t understand the principal-agent problem. If you did, you might understand that there is a huge difference between a rapper selling a million records and the incentives faced by managers of companies relative to the owners when there is a separation of ownership from control of a company. As far as the rapper is concerned, if there are willing customers for his product, who am I to complain?

To the latter’s credit, at least he/she is running a company that employs people and provides a product or service vis a vis entertainment.

I am not sure that being a CEO is any better than being a rapper. If the CEO didn’t exist, someone else would take his or her place, same thing with the rapper. Neither of them are indispensable.

Further I suspect because the Left is so associated with the glitterati whenever there is a reference to the evil stinkin’ rich it’s with respect to a corporate executive and likely one who’s involved in energy…I mean a stinkin’ rich oil executive is a Leftist’s most target rich environment.

The principal-agent problem is does not really vary by industry. CEOs can be self serving in virtually any industry.

When the same people screeching about Immelt or Gates makes the same observation about Jay Z or Kim Kardashian, I’ll take their complaints a little more seriously. Until then it’s just plain tiresome.

You are the only one who brought up these four characters here.

Sure everything is fair game for discussion until the Mods come in and put us back on the reservation. But since the OP made specific reference to income gaps and wealth gaps based on overpaid executives, my focus has been to point out this isn’t particularly relevant to the underlying causes of poverty. Cutting CEO salaries isn’t going to help make Baby Daddy support his ten illegitimate kids or convince the dropout slacker who’s spending the day smoking weed to get off his butt and get a job.

It’s the culture that needs changing more than executive compensation.
Lisa

Greed is part of our culture that needs changing. It is part of every culture.