I agree with your second point. Hell, i would solidify it into the idea of universal salary caps, a way of forcing money to go to work without actually limiting income (which would just scare people out of the country). It would make more sense and help to cut down on mercenary CEOs who jump from one corp to the next, often making the transition in a golden parachute. Long-term thinking would be a good way of turning around the culture of exploitation

lol did anyone actually read the article? The grand tests of a persons entire ethical/moral outlook seem to be the following ...

The first point they mention is a study that showed that people who drove more expensive cars (doesn't really say much about a person's net worth necessarily) at a specific intersection in San Francisco for who knows how long of a study duration. First of all, I am pretty sure everyone cuts people off from time to time. I just cut some one off earlier today on my way to work, and I sort of felt sorry about it, but it was not like I stole from the guy or hit his car or something. According to this article, however, I guess that makes me and everyone else who has ever cut some one off (everyone that has ever driven a car for a few years) totally evil and rotton.

Moving on, the next study is incredibly vague so I really can't place any faith in it at all or properly criticize it because the idiot who wrote this article only seems to communicate in broad generalizations. Study 2 says "rich" people were more likely to admit to behaving unethically in a variety of situations ... whatever that means. Perhaps, rich people are merely more honest and are therefore more likely to admit to researchers that they behave unethically? Guess the researchers did not think of alternative variables and possible explanations.

There was also something about "rich" people cheating more to win a 50 dollar prize or something. In order to make it into a research study that situation would have to be rather artificial. People behave differently when they are in a lab setting. For exmaple, I participated in a study my junior year of undergrad in order to get extra credit for my psychology major course. We all were separated into groups of 3 to play a lame board game monopoly variant of sorts. I was bored with the whole thing, and I just wanted to get out faster so I kind of cheated with dice rolls and just kind of dropped the dice in order to get better rolls. No one else seemed to notice or care. When I play with my friends, however, I never cheat because I enjoy the games themselves, and cheating would remove most of the fun of the experience.

So with these two poorly thought out studies this Paul "doctoral canidate and not a doctor" Piff guy proceeds to make broad generalizations about American society by concluding that "People in power who are more inclined to behave unethically in the service of gains and self-interest can have great effects on society as a whole." First of all, you don't know that Paul since your studies were so narrow in scope and not at all suitable for the data you were looking to study that you can not make any kind of general statement about anyone without real studies and hard data to first back it up. Also, I question your views on ethics. All rational people act in their own self-interest it is how we survive and thrive. Problems arise only when violence or force is involved, and people can be violent in order to gain advantage for themselves or for their group. Whether they are violent for one purpose or the other is irrelevant as what is destructive is not their motive, but their action. If Piff really wanted to compare the ethical standards of people across income brackets, then he should have conducted studies which would reveal how violent rich people are compared to poor. You could separate it into physical violence, fraud, and theft and conduct a study measuring each, or do a literature review of other studies that have already aquired this data.

TL;DR version: If you look at the studies that this doctoral canidate conducted you will find that they are poorly thought out and not capable of being generalized to a large population. Paul Piff, the canidate, clearly has an agenda here which is likely leading his results whether that agenda be political, academic, or just for the sake of gaining publicity.

I don't really have any problem with being contrary to the labor theory of value, though, as I don't agree with it. My belief is that you should be rewarded by how much good your work does, not how much work you do.

It's sort of the same reason you pay more money to the winner of a sports tournament than the person who finished in last place.

Good is subjective, at least as far as we are talking about goodness. Certainly bankers facilitate business on a larger scale, but they are no more essential to the system than janitors, middle managers, train engineers, nuclear physicists, or what have you. We limit goodness to market terms, and our society places value only on that which fetches money through work, and it is merely through the charity of some (or the duly exercised will of the people) that anyone is enabled to do any altruistic good in the world

Then one also asks, could more good be done in society if all of this wealth was distributed more equally, and yet put to work? Through salary equality, the playing field at least could be levelized somewhat

I feel like your being unfair to the LTV.

I mean, afterall LTV does take into account supply and demand.

Even Marx's version does so.

Being paid based on how much "good" your work does is really an unworkable system, largely for two reasons.

1) People are unproportionally interested in doing jobs that are do good.  Teachers don't get paid amazingly well, despite a super strong union, specifically because so many people want to do it for example.  Pretty much any job most people see as doing "good" more people want to do.  While the jobs seen as marginal busy work, nobody wants to do.

2) Good is subjective, and well unmeasuable.  Taking teachers into effect then.  Not all teachers are going to do the same level of "good."  Therefore teachers should be paid differently.  However, how does one decide which teachers are doing the most "good"?   Teaching is a very hard thing to measure because so much depends on the situation your in.  Teachers the students had before, the students parents... etc.

That's not even getting into people who's effects aren't felt until years later down the line.

Or things like art.

Marginalism is a better way to go for sure.

If want to go the Bible route, best to show clear verses, like that in Book of James, that show the point.  One can also speak camels and the eye of a needle also.  I remember of Bill O'Reilly trying to make a point how Jesus doesn't want people to have poor people in the homes of people who have resources, and he totally misses a better verse to use.

The labor theory of value, and things based off of it economically (like Marxism) have been debunked on a whole as not being sufficient.  In a marketplace, people get what they can negotiate, based on the perception of value of the things being offered.  Doesn't matter how hard one works, but how things are perceived to be of value, and the supply of items competing in the same marketspace, and the demand for them.  Hard work, being a good team player, being innovative, smart, and so on, improve the odds, but it is the perceived value, and supply and demand, that end up making a difference.

Well you guys make one wrong assumption. Value = Money... Not betterment of society in our system.
As I said value is not determined over ones value toward the betterment of society but to our employers.


A Janitor cleans things, while a investment banker simply manages money for rich people.

It may seem the Janitor has great value in terms of the betterment of society as he keeps things clean.

To employers who are businesses (whose purpose is to make money), a banker is far more valuable.
Why, its because the janitor keeps things clean but creates no value as value to an employer is money.


That is how are system is run.

Yeah, I'm a real jerk. 10 years ago, I was oh-so-much nicer.

People kinda miss the point with that line however.  I imagine you are too....

The "Eye of the camel" reference comes immediatly after Jesus tells him to sell all his possession and follow Jesus.

Based on that... there is essentially nobody in any developed nation who would fufill said standards... including the poor.

I mean, he doesn't say sell a percentage of your possessions, or a certain amount, or even sell most of your possesions and live simply.  He speicifcally asks the rich man to sell EVERYTHING and follow him... after asking him if he followed all the commandments.

This is important for a couple reasons...

1) John 12:3  through... whatever it is.   Where Judas objects to Jesus using expensive oil. 

2) Since jesus was saying it.  It's worth noting that jesus was... well alive.  At the time it was pretty much near impossible for ANYONE to get into heaven since everyone sucks to a certain degree and is far for perfect.

If you ask me, I think the real meaning of said statement was to show how the young man was not willing to do anything his lord asked him, and therefore wasn't true to god and not as "perfect" as he thought he was... which is more or less essential for salvation after jesus' death in the christian religion.  That one is knowing and accepting of the fact that they've failed to be perfectly moral bengs.

It's the same reason Jesus says "Let he without sin cast the first stone."  Essentially because by worrying about others sins and what others are doing it tends to blind us and shield us from our own faults and misgivings.