With the Occupy Wall Street movement growing by leaps and bounds, the bankers and CEOs finally have to say something in response to the people’s demands. And so far, all the things they’ve said have one feature in common: They ask us to take it for granted that Wall Street investors – and the rich in general – deserve to be rich. They do not argue this point. They simply assert it. If a man is rich, we are expected to believe that he must have done something to earn it.
But why should we? Has Wall Street done anything to benefit the rest of us? Are the rich doing anything useful? If not, if they do not contribute anything to society, then perhaps they don’t deserve to be rich after all. In that case, maybe we should create a new economic system without Wall Street, corporations, shareholders or CEOs.
Let me clarify what I mean by “the rich”. I do not mean people with above-average income. I mean the top 5 percent, the people who get more money in a year than most of us could dream of in a lifetime: the Wall Street bankers, CEOs of large companies, big shareholders, real estate barons. People like Rupert Murdoch, Donald Trump, the Koch brothers and the leaders of Goldman Sachs. Any one of them holds more wealth than thousands of ordinary Americans put together.
Where does all their money come from? Not from working harder than the average person. No man is thousands of times more productive than average. Rupert Murdoch does not do the job of a thousand Fox News employees, and the Koch brothers don’t stand around making millions of toilet paper rolls every day. The rich do not actually produce any goods or services themselves. We do it for them.
But we are often told that the rich somehow work with their minds; that they are great innovators. This is usually a lie. The majority of the rich do not innovate. They hire people to innovate for them – just like they hire people to make things for them.
Think of the building of homes, for example, which is one of the largest industries in the U.S. Who builds houses? Construction workers. Who designs the houses and invents new ways to build them? Architects, who are also workers. And what do the owners and CEOs of real estate conglomerates contribute to all this? Absolutely nothing.
Just look around you. Chances are that all the objects you can see right now were built by low-income workers employed in factories and designed or invented by middle-income workers employed in corporate research and development departments. Their rich bosses had almost nothing to do with it – they just profited from other people’s work.
That is not to say that the rich don’t come up with any new ideas. They do. But Donald Trump doesn’t design better houses, airline company owners don’t invent new planes and pharmaceutical company CEOs don’t cure diseases. They come up with ideas about how to make money. The rich came up with subprime mortgages, credit default swaps and other “financial innovations” that caused this great recession. They also came up with creative new ways to crush unions, drive down wages, cut your health insurance and refuse to pay for your medical treatment because you have a pre-existing condition.
Many rich people do indeed have very gifted minds. But they use them to make life worse for the rest of us. And then they have the nerve to say that they deserve their obscene wealth because of their great innovations. We should be making them pay fines for their harm to society, not rewarding them.
Think of any virtue that you would like to see rewarded: hard work, intelligence, creativity, generosity, kindness. Capitalism does not reward any of these. In some cases it even punishes people who practice them. Capitalism punishes hard work, because the people who work the hardest, most grueling, most unpleasant jobs – mining coal, digging tunnels, cleaning toilets – are usually among the lowest paid.
Capitalism does not reward intelligence because the most intelligent people with the most years of education – like scientists and doctors – are not the ones who become super-rich.
Capitalism does not reward creativity because creative people – artists, musicians, inventors – can end up anywhere from dirt poor to very rich.
And capitalism certainly does not reward generosity, kindness or any other human values. In fact, you get punished for caring about others. A boss who is generous to his workers will get driven out of business by Wal-Mart, and people who dedicate their lives to others (e.g. social workers) get paid very little. The fact that many people are still generous anyway is an amazing testament to the resilience of the human spirit in the face of the evils of capitalism. I can only imagine how many more people would act that way if we lived in a society that didn’t give us incentives to be selfish and greedy.
What capitalism rewards is greed and ruthlessness. If you have these two things, then – and only then – will you succeed. The greed of the bankers on Wall Street is not an accident. We live in an economic system that encourages us all to be like them, by creating vast inequalities of wealth and putting the worst people on top. That needs to change. So when the defenders of capitalism ask us why we demand equality or why we occupy Wall Street, this should be our first answer: Because the rich do not deserve to be rich.
Mike Tudoreanu is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
Todd Bertie • Feb 23, 2016 at 3:27 pm
Wrong question.
The question that matters is, “Who do you want to empower to decide how rich each person gets to be?” Whomever you give that power to will be more dangerous than the people you’re worried about, because their decisions will be based on favoritism and political power, not based on markets and demand. In other words, you’ll be giving economic control to the politicians who rig the system. You’ll be taking the power to drive markets away from the people and giving it to special interests via govt.
Such a dumb column, would like to hear if the young communist who wrote it has learned how wrong he was yet or if he’s supporting Bernie Sanders.
Wallace B. • Dec 28, 2015 at 10:42 am
Wow, one of the best articles I have read in my entire life for sure! I totally abhor the ruthless capitalism that plagues our world and makes the living of billions of humans torturous and miserabe for the sake and welfare of a few bloodsuckers..
What makes me so sad is to read comments from people who are bashing the author for what he so wisely and elegantly wrote, as if they are actually supporting that present filthy economic system..
I’m not a socialist either, I just call for a more human and beneficial capitalist model that does not concentrate most profit in the hand of a few bastards that do the best to exploit their employees and maintain disgusting monopolies..
Bongstar420 • Nov 27, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Yarrgghhh!
Joseph Hill • Nov 5, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Fantastic article, Mr. Tudoreano!!! This is one of the most thoughtful pieces I’ve read on the subject of the disparities–not only of wealth, but of ‘work’–between the “Haves” and the “Have Nots”. People are only as good as the system that made them what they are allows them to be. CEOs are not by nature evil and acquisitive (though there seem to be exceptions); but a capitalist (dog-eat-dog) economic system, based on the false notion of SCARCITY, sure brings out the worst in the “Masters of the Universe”.
Anyway, GREAT JOB on this!
SJ • Nov 3, 2011 at 12:12 am
@Matt D.,
Why did Dell, Jobs, Trump, Gates, Hewlett & Packard, et al. create these businesses that we hold so dearly? 1) To produce quality products and services, and 2) to make money in order to acquire necessities such as food, shelter, water, transportation, etc. and luxuries such as nice clothes, a big house, fine wine, whatever they wanted. Now tell me why all of these companies’ workers CHOOSE to work for these bloodthirsty, soul-crushing capitalist companies? TO MAKE MONEY in order to acquire their necessities for themselves and their families. They have common goals, they are both using money as a means to an end. If Michael Dell hadn’t thought of his model of a company first, who is to say he wouldn’t be working as an engineer for Joe Schmo Computer Co.? In many cases, it’s simply a matter of who had the idea first and was first to act on it (just like the stock market) and who executes their idea the best. Survival of the fittest.
Matt D. • Nov 2, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Sure, capitalists create companies. But the workers are the ones actually making the PRODUCTS of those companies.
So yeah, there would not be a company called “Dell” if not for Michael Dell, and there would not be a company called “Apple” if not for Steve Jobs. But the actual products made by these companies would still exist, because those products are invented and built by WORKERS, not by capitalists. iPods would still be around even if Steve Jobs never existed – although they would probably have a different name and they would not be produced by a company called “Apple.”
ktabz • Oct 31, 2011 at 4:03 pm
How many companies would not be around if not for a capitalist? You couldn’t have gotten the Dell laptop you typed this on if Michael Dell (CEO and creator of Dell Computers) didn’t take the risk and procure the financing necessary to create a company that sold PCs over the phone. You would not have your iPhone if it weren’t for Steve Jobs making computers in his garage and trying to make money off of it. You would not have a PC at your home if it weren’t for Hewlett and Packard believing that a company could be both innovative and profitable in the 19th century. You would not have lunch if the creator of Dominos hadn’t decided he could make home delivered pizza franchises a profitable business model.
Anarchy Sucks • Oct 27, 2011 at 11:11 am
It’s cute when socialists pretend to be economists. Go back to playing Rage Against the Machine in moms basement with your Buck Fush T-Shirts. The rich deserve to be richer, the poor just deserve more.
Dan • Oct 24, 2011 at 11:58 pm
Dear Anarchists Unite,
Do not confuse the greed behind the private banks who own and control almost everything including the governments, political parties, the media and the news services and their minions in public education who fill your brain with their propaganda with real capitalism.
Capitalism is under attack by the very people you protest. You have every right to be angry at the international banksters who are dragging down the global economy. These bastards are tanking the dollar and the system and funding OWS. Your premise that rich do not deserve to be rich is idiotic. The reality that these banksters have no loyalty to their country or fellow citizens is spot on.
the folks behind the international finance, Rothschild, IMF, World Bank, The United Nations and other globalists are behind the misinformation and confusion. The are pushing for a one world government. Doubt it? What is the agenda behind global warming? Was not the goal of the 2009 UN Global Conference on Climate Change. Was it not a binding international treaty establishing a governing body over the sovereignty of every nation with the power to tax, energy through cap and trade. The very people causing the turmoil guys like George Soros, will be waiting to take advantage of situation resulting from the chaos they created in the first place see video below. You are being robbed by devalued money and overregulation through unelected bureaucrats. But because you do not realize you are being played for a fool in the system and you never defined change you will trade your freedom for security and end up a slave. See video below to define the government systems. Guaranteed you have that wrong as well. America is not a democracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhG4yJByfrE&feature=player_embedded#!
Sarah • Oct 19, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Charles, apparently you think that even in these hard times, 9 out of 10 of your neighbors are still having it too good and would deserve to be hit even harder. I really don’t know what to say to that… Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow human beings?
.
.
Mark, please, no more of that tired old myth that says you can somehow get rich if only you try hard enough. No, you CAN’T. I know many people who have tried. My best friend’s father has been trying for years. He must have started at least 10 different businesses in his life. I have a cousin and a close friend who worked themselves nearly to death to pay for college, only to find that there were no jobs for them when they graduated. One of my aunts who used to be moderately wealthy just lost her job recently. She’s in her 50s, no one else will hire her, and now she doesn’t have any health insurance either. Don’t tell us to try harder. People are trying as hard as they can, and it isn’t working.
.
The only way for a person from a working class background to get rich is if they are extremely lucky. You actually admitted that yourself when you said that your friends risked it all and it paid off. In other words, they got rich because they were lucky.
.
When some wealth – ANY wealth – is distributed according to the roll of the dice, that is blatant injustice. When more and more wealth is distributed that way (which is what’s happening in America)
J C Charles • Oct 19, 2011 at 12:09 pm
If everyone received “what they deserved”, then 90%+ of the population would be in for a VERY rude awakening.
In addition, 98% of college & university students would not be students, and the would be subjected to the “Rule of 17-18”. This rule states that ‘As a parent I will continue to support you through the age of 17. By age 18, I will cease to support you, so you better prepare yourself for a life of self sufficiency.
Mark • Oct 18, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Also, from the standpoint of a research methods professor (among other subjects), this is horribly written. You make lots of assertions but don’t give any sort of examples, statistics, authoritative quotations/citations or the likewise. Your arguments are largely emotive and ad hominem. You are a skilled rhetorician, but this particular work is akin to sophistry. I’d recommend you read The Gorgias by Plato to discover the definition of sophistry and what kind of rhetoric is the virtuous kind.
Mark • Oct 18, 2011 at 8:33 pm
So, if someone gets to the top 5% by living frugally and investing wisely (and creates wealth) they are a bane on society? What about the guy from “The Pursuit of Happyness?”, is he undeserving of his riches? Of course, you’re assuming a zero sum economy where wealth is only taken and not created. I have found that through short term sacrifice in view of long term gain, anyone with any level of income can create wealth. I guess short term sacrifice is stupid? I guess we all deserve instant gratification?
I’m a professor, how about I give everyone in my class the class average for every test? You’ll see what happens to productivity. I know some of the super rich. The ones I know we’re from meager background, went to college, got a good job, lived frugally and saved wisely. Then they risked it all by opening a business and it paid off.
My uncle, a super rich guy, was raised, along with my mother, in a struggling blue collar household. He became an engineer and lived off if scraps for years. One year he got a great project and his work resulted in the revolutionizing of the refining industry. He was made senior management and got a huge salary. Does he need to be considered undeserving of his riches? And don’t worry, he doesn’t throw stuff my way–just like my middle class mother. If I wanted something growing up beyond the budget–I had to come up with the money myself. My uncle did the same with his kids. All are doing well, and did it without a penny from my uncle. He gives away a lot of his stuff. My whole point is you need to stop painting with the big brush.
Jefferson Free-Market • Oct 14, 2011 at 12:03 pm
By the time you finished this casual draft, the subjects you highlight have made more money on their wealth from interest alone…It appears your department may be turning you into a Marx(?). Don’t let the drudge get to you. Perhaps it may serve you well to spend some time in Manhattan, to help understand what ‘hard’ work is like.
P.s- No-one-owes-you-anything.
CommonSense • Oct 14, 2011 at 1:01 am
“I think we, as a society, should debate and decide exactly what (if anything) should be rewarded with a very high income.”
Very good point, Sarah. I don’t think anyone here is advocating that everyone should be paid exactly the same amount, or that people shouldn’t be rewarded for hard work and/or productivity. Most of us are concerned about how the RIDICULOUSLY high income of one person screws over several others who are often equally or more hard-working. And that begs the question of who deserves what.
Now this may be going on a tangent, but I personally believe no one should be rich as long as there are people starving or unable to afford health care, etc. There is enough food to feed the world’s population and there are certainly enough resources to provide health care for everyone, so it is more or less the greed of the rich that stands in the way of these goals.
I confidently say “I believe no one should be rich” because when I do the math, it seems impossible for me to determine that any rich person has actually EARNED the money they make relative to other hard-working people who aren’t rich. Let’s say we define “rich” as someone making $250k a year; such people make over 5 times more than the average American. Now can we say that the majority of them literally worked 5 times harder than the guy who works very hard for his $50,000? I think that is both physically and practically impossible- even saying they work 3 times harder is a stretch. And it only gets worse the higher you go- someone making a million a year DOES NOT work 20 times harder than the average American. Of course, hard work isn’t the only thing, and we definitely have to reward productivity as well in order for society to function. But I would go through the roof if anyone says that a news anchor or football coach making $5 million is 20 times more productive than a doctor or 100 times more productive than a teacher. !!!!!
Sarah • Oct 12, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Tim, I don’t think anyone is saying that they know who DOES deserve to be rich. I think they’re saying they know who DOESN’T.
Personally, I don’t know who deserves to be rich. Maybe people whose jobs require many years of advanced education and training, like doctors. Or maybe people who work very hard at their jobs, regardless of what those jobs are. Or maybe no one should be rich. I think we, as a society, should debate and decide exactly what (if anything) should be rewarded with a very high income.
What I do know for sure is that the people who spend all their time figuring out how to get other people’s money, and who caused this recession while they were at it, do NOT deserve to be rich.
Ken Jacobson Adjunct Anthropology • Oct 12, 2011 at 9:46 am
To me the strongest part of article’s argument is the statement: “They also came up with creative new ways to crush unions, drive down wages, cut your health insurance and refuse to pay for your medical treatment because you have a pre-existing condition.” However. I think that point needs to be taken further. I don’t really care how someone else lives relative to how I live, so long as I can live somewhat comfortably. By squeezing the so-called middle class, but treating workers as interchangeable objects, my ability to live comfortably…assuming I put in an honest day’s work at something…is put at risk. I would suggest that a new paradigm is needed. We cannot keep rehashing the capitalism vs whatever agreements.We need to think about a world in which consumerism is defined by the quality of goods not the quantity. A world in which locally made products can compete because they’re good, because they last, not because they’re cheap. We need to recognize that health care, good health care, is a universal right, not a privilege to be dolled out by politicians. We need to recognize the education through post-secondary…indeed if qualified through to the doctorate level… is a universal right, not something one needs to go into debt for. To me OWS is the beginning of a needed dialogue leading to that new paradigm. And to me articles like this one are part of that dialogue; and as such are necessary contributions.
bob • Oct 11, 2011 at 10:03 pm
The following is excerpted from Mother Jones Magazine regarding Laurence Gluck and Riverton (Gluck is the guy who bought 16 Mitchell-Lama middle income complexes and has taken or is attempting to take them out of the Mitchell-Lama program, oust the long-term tenants, and charge everyone market rate) ………………………………………………………………. “It all sounds like a classic tale of the bust except that, unlike ordinary people caught up in foreclosure proceedings, Gluck and his partners have made a fortune off Riverton Houses. Just as homeowners often take out some extra cash when they refinance a property, team Gluck pulled out $67 million—the high-roller version of cash at closing. A homeowner would be on the hook for that extra cash, but Gluck’s group purchased Riverton through a limited liability shell company, which allows it to shelter its refinancing windfall in case of a default. Minus the down payment, the partners walk away with nearly $42 million. The Riverton deal exemplifies a strategy known as predatory equity.”
Tim M. • Oct 11, 2011 at 9:12 am
I don’t know why you or anyone else thinks they can decide who deserves to be rich. It is greed on both sides: the extremely rich who have tons of money and demand more, and the student who thinks he is owed something and demands equality. Greed drives both sides. Please stop acting like one side is better than the other.
John G. • Oct 11, 2011 at 12:07 am
“Business creators make the money that they do because they put the time into doing what they do.” Well yeah. But is “doing what they do” useful to society? Is it productive? Does it make the world better? The answer is NO.
I don’t think anyone denies that the rich are intelligent and skillful. I’m sure that it takes a lot of mathematical knowledge to create those “financial innovations” we keep hearing about. But you know what, being a successful burglar or mafia boss takes a lot of intelligence and skill too. Just because you’re really good at doing something, that doesn’t mean you deserve to be rich. And if that something actually hurts people – like the “financial innovations” do – then you REALLY don’t deserve to be rich.
Also, “academics, professors, researchers, analysts, doctors” are NOT the rich that we’re talking about here. They are not even in the top 5%, let alone the top 1%. Scientists, doctors and so on get more money than average, sure, but their wealth is nothing compared to the wealth of the real rich.
Leni • Oct 10, 2011 at 12:57 am
David, please tell me, who is this person named “capitalism” that supposedly produced all those things? Where does he live? What’s his phone number?
You see, capitalism is not actually a person. Capitalism is an economic system. It’s an abstract concept. Capitalism doesn’t produce things. People produce things. Buses, computers, bricks, pavement, clothes – all these things are made by people, by WORKERS. Not by company owners, not by shareholders, not by CEOs, and not by bankers. I think that’s the point of this op-ed.
e h • Oct 9, 2011 at 10:41 pm
David Hunt, I have started a business (several, actually – and all more successful now than when I started them), I’ve taken lots of risks, I drive, and I agree with a large part of this article. You, on the other hand, sound like someone who has never given any truly deep thought to why the world is the way it is, and how it could be made better for everyone.
Eric Tori • Oct 9, 2011 at 6:53 pm
“rich people don’t deserve to be rich” what does that even mean?
David Hunt '90 • Oct 9, 2011 at 7:48 am
Do the world a favor. If it is profit you hate, stop using the following things, all done by companies making a profit (partial list):
Computers
Elevators
Clothes
Gas / oil heat
Electricity
Food
Antibiotics
Kainoa • Oct 8, 2011 at 10:18 pm
I find this to be utterly pathetic… those so called “creative” musicians are not rich because they didn’t spend years in school studying economics, statistics, and science. They didn’t go to grad school to enhance their intellectual ability. You rant about how these gaps of income are unequal and you know what for the most part I would agree with you. The top 1% making billions a year should not have that kind of monetary ability, but your arguments are anecdotal at best. Those that possess the knowledge and technical ability to innovate, create, and sustain economic growth are the ones that should succeed. Academics, professors, researchers, analysts, doctors,and Business creators make the money that they do because they put the time into doing what they do. Honestly if you could even begin to comprehend the mathematical integrity and stark innovation that goes into a single financial product then you too deserve much more. In a nation that has 40% of its citizens below the poverty line and a failing competitive work force you are bound to have those that argue being at the bottom is wrong. But you cannot tell me that putting those with limited ability first will fix the world around us… open your eyes! Everything that you have benefited from is an innovation of capitalism.Let me ask you then, if you were to get your way and capitalism be changed to reward the proletariat what kind of economic system do you see becoming the true governing system of the world? It nice to think what our world could be like if we were paid on the ratings of our hugs… but what true human innovation would come out of a system like that?
CommonSense • Oct 8, 2011 at 9:41 am
THANK YOU!!! The rich (in almost all cases) do not DESERVE to be rich!!! Finally someone is admitting it. I am almost positive that if God had to make a statement on this issue, He would lean heavily on the side that, for the most part, rich people don’t deserve even a fraction of their wealth based on the actual work they do.
David Hunt '90 • Oct 7, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Written by someone who has never started a company, never taken a risk, and is using busses, a computer, bricks, pavement, clothes, etc… all produced by capitalism.
Top Six Reasons Why I Love Capitalism
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/01/23/top-six-reasons-why-i-love-capitalism/
Mike L. • Oct 7, 2011 at 2:17 pm
it’s alright though steve jobs can be rich cause his company the oh so trendy and hip apple products!!
Leni • Oct 7, 2011 at 12:20 am
The last line is so powerful. That is why I occupy!
Also, great plug for social workers. They don’t get enough credit for their tireless dedication to serving others.