Is it right to make money at expense of vast masses?

Question

Raymond · Answer

I don’t think ethics is typically involved.

I couldn’t name one song Taylor Swift has recorded. She seems popular though. Apparently very popular and prosperous. Her fans are likely in the tens of millions. Individuals are allowed to buy her products. Nobody is limiting her sales to 50,000 items. Taylor is not going door-to-door trying to persuade people to buy. It’s a voluntary relationship.

Artist Ellisa Sun doesn’t have the same pull publicly. But we don’t limit Taylor’s success because another artist isn’t as popular. Saying to Taylor that she has to earn only a given amount of money because not everyone earns as she does.

There are very few items I am required to purchase — or at least it’s not fiscally responsible to not have: home insurance, auto insurance, life insurance, earthquake insurance (Southern California living). Most other things are voluntary or have choices involved.

I think I may have gone to a theater once in the last 10 years. But somehow many leading stars are making millions. That’s fine by me. A company was willing to negotiate and pay for that person … I’m not involved. Nobody else has to go to the theater either. It’s voluntary.

There are plenty of other scenarios where there are huge disparities in earnings from the top echelon to the bottom most rung. That’s a different issue. That’s a different discussion.

Legislating wages is one way to address the issue but also annihilate jobs, if not businesses.

Anonymous · Answer

Yes, absolutely.

Free enterprise is based on the principle of mutually beneficial trades. Your earnings are only unethical if you profit from exploiting a monopoly position or trade in products and services which could be deemed harmful to society.

The premise in the question detail is incorrect. Money is not almost always made at the expense of others. Mutually beneficial trades add value for both parties and increase the total amount of wealth in the economy. Making a lot of money therefore benefits all of society, other than in the situations mentioned above.

Martin Tindall · Answer

Very interesting question! Making money cannot be considered bad unless you have made money by wrong means. Money is a medium which will help you to fulfill your basic necessities of life and live serenely.

You are worried about the people who are suffering is good,  which means you are person who is good at heart. Instead of feeling sad you should work for making more and more money so that you can in turn help a lot of people who are suffering in the world.

Anonymous · Answer

Follow the Andrew Carnegie [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Andrew-Carnegie ] Dictum:
 * Spend the first third of your life getting all the Education [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Education ] you can.
 * Spend the next third making all the money you can.
 * Spend the last third giving it all away for worthwhile causes.

Anonymous · Answer

You won't help poor people by joining their ranks.

Michal Stradomski · Answer

"The score will take care of itself"

Just don't focus on making money (score). Focus on creating value (process). You will be more successfull, happy and... rich. A paradox!

Along the way share even 1% of income with the suffering.

Alex Chen · Answer

You are making the explicit assertion here that the financial industry makes their profits at the direct expense of millions of people. Finance is not a zero-sum game. You ask these questions about the value of high frequency trading and hedge funds and then seem to already have your answer.

It is certainly true that not everyone who works in finance has the most ethical motives or behaviors, but the industry as a whole is a massive net positive for society. Do you really believe that the world would be better off without the financial system?

Krishnan Ramaswami · Answer

I am writing from Bangalore, India. I don’t really understand the question. However, I may answer from my Hindu, Indian perspective. Under certain circumstances, there will be no question of morality or anything else if a person is living on other people's money ( on a regular basis ).

If my son/daughter is not in a position to work and earn a living, I will let them live with me as long as they live and provided for them always. in these Covid times, if my offspring had lost their job and were unable to provide for themselves, they would have been welcome to live with me as long as necessary till they got a job and could live independently.

Of course, if there is a person who sponges on other people without any justification as in the cases I have suggested above, it would be morally wrong to the core.

Madan Mohan Lohia · Answer

Not at all,  key issues would be

1. How do you do it, ways and means...what sacrifices you are willing to make to earn lots of money

2. What do you do with it

3. What happens when you are not able to do it

4. When it becomes sole purpose of your existence and you forget that it is only a mean and not end

5. When you give money the highest place in your life and judgement.

6. When in run up, you lose all friends and family.

7. When you become so arrogant that no one wants to come hear to you.

8. When only people surrounding you, are looking for your money.

9. When you are not sure about who would be with you if you lose all your money.

10. When your family, friends, hobbies all become secondary to you in persuit or after earing "lots of money".

Desi Beauty · Answer

There are many ways to earn money, and the latest methods depend on the current economic and technological trends. Some examples of ways people are earning money currently include:

Selling products or services online through e-commerce platforms

Investing in stocks, cryptocurrency, or real estate

Creating and monetizing content on social media platforms

Providing freelance services in a specific skill or trade

Starting a business in a growing industry.

It is important to note that earning money requires effort, time and patience. It's best to do your research and seek professional advice before making any financial decisions.

Anonymous · Answer

Another way of saying "making money [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Wanting-and-Making-Money ]" is "providing goods or services to your fellow man that they find more valuable to themselves than the money they have." This is moral and right, assuming you are not making money by theft [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Theft ] or fraud [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Fraud ].

I should also note that over the past 20 years, a time of free market [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Free-Markets ] economies replacing command economies around the world, over 1 billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. Capitalism [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Capitalism ] works.

Towards the end of poverty [ http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim ]

Anonymous · Answer

Not necessarily. Let’s illustrate. I will keep it very basic and simple to let the take-away shine through.

A subdivision in a small town suffers a catastrophic tornado. Among the many things they are lacking is drinking water - a basic necessity - and no way to get any. That is a serious misfortune. You go buy up a bunch of bottled water and bring in a truckload . . . and sell it to them one bottle at a time at an exorbitant price, say $75.00 per bottle. Strictly speaking, that is a profit. You profited from their misfortune. But it is an immoral profit.

A lady suffers a car accident in which she was not at fault. She was T-boned by a drunk driver. You are an attorney. You take her case and go after coverage from the driver’s insurance company. You are able to settle the case for $1 million. You get 33%, which is over $300,000. You practice law; that is how you make a living. The 33% is your income from that case. Strictly speaking, it is a profit. You profited from her unfortunate accident. But it is not an immoral profit.

Erik Fair · Answer

Yes.

You legally get rich by selling other people goods & services they need or want at a price they find attractive (in competition [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Business-Competition ] with other sellers of same), at a profit to yourself, while not spending more money than you make in profit (i.e. you save [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Personal-Savings ] money).

%3E Throughout history, poverty [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Poverty ] is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

-Robert A. Heinlein [ https://www.quora.com/topic/Robert-A-Heinlein-author ]

Joseph Wang · Answer

How is being unsuccessful and miserable going to help those people?

Yaro Shumeyko · Answer

You have to provide value for people, help . And How much can a person invest not everyone can invest $1000 or more some cant invest 50$ you have to provide even lower investment

Steve Paul · Answer

“Force and take”, no matter the spin used, is another form of slavery. Involuntarily taking someone’s sweat and hard work is stealing.

We have a tax system today whereby 1% of taxpayers, including billionaires, pay about 40% of Federal income taxes. I think I would thank these people before I demonize them.

If we start an annual confiscation of wealth, as a few Leftists are now advocating, don’t be surprised if these people stop investing and stop growing their wealth. Why bother. Voilà, the taxable pie starts to shrink. Let the misery begin.

Mayank Gupta · Answer

No, absolutely not.

I assume you are thinking about making lots of money by legal means. I don't think you are going to take the route of Pablo Escobar.

Think about people who made a lot of money. Warren Buffett. Bill Gates. Larry Page and Serby Brin. Andrew Carnegie. John D Rockefeller. Azim Premji Hashmi. Anyone else you can think of. Even Steven Speilberg is a billionaire. But none of them started by thinking, "I am going to earn a lot of money."

None of them was/is originally interested in money. They were good at hardworking. They had vision. They enjoyed doing stuffs. They enjoyed whatever business/niche they were in. They were good at seeing the opportunities and tapping them. They were, to varying extent, workaholics. They had grand ambitions. In each case, money just happened. In some ways, money reflects how much you have been able to give the society because you get money because you give something to society. Money just reflect the value of services you offer to society. Bill Gates became rich because millions of people like you are using Windows based computer right now. That is how the ecnomony works. Value for value. Value for money. Money for value.

Money is just a barometer, often a poor one, of your successes in what you are doing. Money is just an outcome of your overall efforts in your field. You will often hear people saying, "Don't chase money. There is nothing in money. Don't work too hard for money" and stuffs like that. But look around. Everyone is working hard. Everyone is working tirelessly. Everyone is going an extra mile and each one of them started not because they want to get rich, but because it is a matter of survival. Either you do and earn some money or you don't do anything and beg for money. Then there is this competition. Either you do better/more or get perished. Whatever you are doing right now can be done in better ways by many other people. So you put up efforts to stay relevant/ahead. When Google arrived on the scense, there were other search engines. They didn't innovate. Google came with better solution. Now rest of them are extinct. What if Google stop innovating? They too will go extinct. Larry and Sergy would see their fortunes dipping in matter of months.

So, you see, if you choose to decide to earn a lot of money (in legal and moral ways), you are going to do things differently, you are going to think differently, you are going to bring more out of your potential, you are going to see how every minute counts, you are going to work with best of peoples, you are going to take enormous risks, you are going to travel a lot more, you are going to learn a lot more. And none of them is actually a bad thing. As you are going to work hard anyway to survive, if not to become obsencely rich.

So, go on. Pursue the dream of making lots of money. As someone have said, "I have been rich and I have been poor. And I know being rich is certainly better than being poor."

Kenneth Sternberg · Answer

No. That is actually very beneficial to society as a whole.

When Gates made his $60 billion, he created a dozen other billionaires, and an estimated 12,000 millionaires in his wake.

He created very good jobs for hundreds of thousands, great investment opportunities for millions.

He has paid billions in taxes, and has matched the Social Security contribution of every employee without any exception.

Buffet, Bezos, Musk and others have done the same.

If we took Gate's assets and divided them equally between every American, we would get a one time stimulus check, and lose the generations of benefits we are continuing to receive because of Gates wealth.

Ashris Choudhury (আশ্রীশ চৌধুরী) · Answer

Michael Sandel, professor of political philosophy at Harvard University in his lecture series on Justice has explained the "ethics" in economy quite well.

You ask that there are very well off individuals making tons of money while several others suffer from poverty and pain. Does it mean we take all the money of the wealthy ones and distribute it among the less fortunate?

Sandel argues that such a system would be counter-productive as this will make a two way harm. The hard working individuals who can make lot of wealth will now have no incentive to work harder as they won't earn as much as they work. Also, by distributing free wealth to disadvantaged people, many would get lazy and have no incentive to work as they would earn anyway.

There are three views that have evolved over the times to reach to a conclusion as to what ethically does a person deserve from what he earns. I'll briefly explain these views.

Libertarian view of justice argues for a free market system. It argues that jobs are open to be taken up by anyone who is qualified to do them and shall put in their hard work to do so. In such a scenario, the talented and hard working individuals rightfully deserve all the wealth that they earn.

However, is that fair?

Sandel denies saying that such a system of distribution isn't fair because in such a scenario, people with an affluent background will get an unfair advantage. Individuals who happen to be fortunate to have good education and the required qualifications have so, only because of accident by birth. Such a distribution of resources would only be unfair who are disadvantaged by accident of birth.

Meritocratic view:

This view argues for fair equality of opportunity. Providing everyone with fair rights to excel is what meritocratic individuals believe. Everybody should be starting from the same start line.

But then, Sandel argues, who is going to win in such a case? The fastest runners are. And do you think a runner is fast enough only because of the efforts that he or she put? No, even the ability to put in required effort is a privilege you earn by the accident of birth. You can run fast because you got the necessary environment which others didn't. This view assumes that everyone was brought up in a fair, equal world which is far from reality.

The unfairness of this system is tried to be corrected by the Egalitarian view.

People may gain or benefit from their good fortune, but only under the condition that the least well off are benefited by that.

This in simplistic terms means that, as long as their is a taxation to your income that goes for the welfare of the less well-off, the remaining income of yours is rightfully deserved by you. This does not take away the whole incentive to work as the tax percentage is adjusted in such a manner that too disproportionate distribution is avoided.

A logical rebuttal to the Egalitarian view would be "Why should I be paying my money which I own to the government against my will? Isn't it something I own? Isn't government committing a theft?"

Sandel explains that while we enjoy fundamental rights of freedom, speech, and dignity, we do not own ourselves of what we earn entirely. We owe a lot of what we have been able to earn to the society and hence we need to contribute to its welfare. It is not the violation of one's right but a moral duty one has taken up by the contract of entering into the social fabric.

I believe that this is a convincing view of what makes earning money ethical.

Reference: Justice with Michael Sandel [ http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-08/#watch ]