PepsiCo to cut 8,700 jobs

[Scheavo]

But if you got something unfairly, why does that still make it yours?

Depends what you mean by unfairly.

What I've already brought up. They take more for themselves, simply because they're in a position to do so, not because they've objectively earned it.

Or lobbying and getting a 16% tax rate on capital gains, so that they can pay less than anyone else in taxes... and then, lobby to make sure it stays that way. While they're at it, lobby and buy off a whole bunch of loopholes and regulations that can benefit them personally.

I'd like an argument for why that's fairly earned money - and keep in mind, I'm not saying we just take that money back, but that we let this knowledge influence our fiscal and social policies.

None of that is necessarily fair.  I agree that, yes, you should be paid relative to how much you're worth to the company.  I also think that, yes, the super-low capital gains tax is awful.

But, like it or not, those things were earned.  The CEO got that job, and the rich were able to lobby for it.

I don't really know how you can, in such a short scope, say something is not fair, and then say it's still earned. Does a thief earn what he steals? Should we be praising Madoff and other Ponzi schemes?

Because it's trying to show you how much of your argument is irrelevant. Rich people make it out as if they're special, worked harder, did something greater than anyone else, when it's mostly, as you later admit, fortune and good luck.

Here's the thing though.  Everyone can have fortune and good luck

I really don't see how that's true, and is full of unrealistic positivist thinking.

Yes, business ethics in this country are horrible.  But not for the reasons you're saying.  CEO's should have some sense of social consciousness, sure.  Toxic waste dumping is horrific.  But the real problem is CEO's, at least the ones who make headlines, aren't loyal to their customers or even their own companies.

Um, the real problem you bring up is one of moral and ethical nature. So it's actually exactly what I'm saying. It's part of the business culture to promote people who don't care about their customers or even their own companies, because those kinds of traits can usually pull in the most money.

How does acquiring wealth necessarily mean someone else loses it?  Seriously?  How?

Wealth that's created is in the future, at any given point in time, wealth is a finite thing. Money is a rather meaningless social convention, and it's hard to say that money is truly wealth, only that it (usually) provides access to wealth. There was only so much "food" that existed last year, yesterday, etc. The commons are a limited thing as well, so when I take, that means there's less for other people. This isn't just Facebook and intellectual idea's, it's literally things like water, food, heating, property - all those things people will kill each other for.

It's just a pie chart, and it's all percentages.

[bosk1]

I don't really know how you can, in such a short scope, say something is not fair, and then say it's still earned. Does a thief earn what he steals? Should we be praising Madoff and other Ponzi schemes?

Not to speak for Reap', but you are blurring together several different issues.  First, fair vs. earned have nothing to do with one another.  The guy at the firm up the street may do just as fine a job as I do and work just as hard, but earn more because his firm simply has more financial resources, his clients pay more than mine, etc.  That is not intrinsically fair.  But we have each earned what we get.  Two NFL QB's may be of equal talent, but QB 1 graduates 2 years before QB 2.  QB 1 is drafted by a team in a big market that is high profile, has lots of talent for the QB, and goes on to become a perennial playoff contender and wins a SB or two, so QB 1 makes a lot of money and gets a lot of endorsements and other opportunities to make money.  QB 2 happens to graduate and be drafted in a year where not a lot of teams are shopping for QB's, so he gets picked for a team that has not interest in spending money to acquire a lot of talent around him, etc.  He works just as hard, maybe harder, but ultimately has a much less successful career and fewer financial opportunities.  Not really fair.  But QB 1 has still earned what he has despite better opportunities that, by comparison, are just a matter of dumb luck.  There are an infinite number of scenarios where it may not be "fair" that someone has earned something, but it is still earned in every legitimate sense of the word.

Second, the morality of how one acquires what one has is also a separate issue.  No, a thief has not necessarily earned what he has (same with Madoff, etc.).  But that's not really the issue on the table.

[Scheavo]

Second, the morality of how one acquires what one has is also a separate issue.  No, a thief has not necessarily earned what he has (same with Madoff, etc.).  But that's not really the issue on the table.

BUT IT IS.

The issue on the table IS NOT that someone earns more money than someone else, it's that once that money is earned, certain people have basically bribed the tax collector to not take as much of their earnings as their neighbor.

And I'd say fair and earned overlap at least a little bit. You cannot unfairly earn something.

[bosk1]

Then we have a fundamental disagreement in philosophy on this issue.

[Scheavo]

So it's fair to game the system in your favor? It's morally acceptable to bribe officials to pay less in taxes?

[Super Dude]

So it's fair to game the system in your favor? It's morally acceptable to bribe officials to pay less in taxes?

Which is what PLM and I have been trying to get at.

[King Postwhore]

So it's fair to game the system in your favor? It's morally acceptable to bribe officials to pay less in taxes?

Isn't that what "All" politicians do when they essentially take donations for their campaigns?  You don't get backed for free.

[Scheavo]

So it's fair to game the system in your favor? It's morally acceptable to bribe officials to pay less in taxes?

Isn't that what "All" politicians do when they essentially take donations for their campaigns?  You don't get backed for free.

One reason I want to get rid of our system, but that's not relevant.

[King Postwhore]

But so true!!