Wealth Distribution in the USA

I think what we can do is examine two companies that are similar, but provide different results to their employees.Let's compare Walmart and Costco.Walmart's owners are multi billionaires. The CEO made over 20 Million dollars last year. 80% of the walmart employees qualify for food stamps.Costco, a similar store, with similar prices.The CEO of Costco made 500K last year.
The average employee makes 18 dollars an hour. 85% of them have health care.Does the cosco employee work that much harder than the walmart one?

I do not think it would be best through socialism.. per say. I think there should be some more socialistic programs.. but a mixed economy , and financial regulations seem to be the best solution.I think regulation would be the best to get a healthier distrubition of wealth .. and I do like the idea of divorcing health care from being provided by employers (maybe vouchers , and you chose???)But I see problems with pure socialism

It seems to me when it comes to jobs in the United States, there are several factors to consider1) What responsibility does the employer legally have
2) What responsibility does the employer have to their shareholders (i.e. the bottom line and the all mighty buck
3) What responsibility does the employer have to their employees
4) What responsibility does the employer have to society as a whole.It seems to me, right now, in the U.S... the major corporations to all intents and purposes ONLY think of 'the bottom line'.. and only go beyond that when there are legalities involved. Those legalities are little things like 'quality control' and 'environmental issues' and 'don't poison the customer'. It seems the fiscal conservatives want to get rid of those controls to increase the bottom line.Some of that 'going for the bottom line' include some things that are not for good for their employees, and not good for society as a whole. It seems that the people with the money have convince the government to mainly be consern with the bottom line, and for the monetary well being of the corporations and the shareholders, and not to concern themselves with the employees. They are the ones with the money and he who has the gold makes the rules.That is the situation as Percy describes. But.. is that the right thing to do In my opinion.. no, it is not.What ever happened to 'an honest days wage for an honest days work'?? It's gone. Many of the people who work hard live at a subsistance wage, while the CEO's of those corporations earn multiple millions.80% of the people who work at walmart qualify for food stamps... which means the tax payer to subsidizing walmart for their salaries.. and the CEO made 35 MILLION a year. Let's compare that with Cosco, where the owner/ceo made 500K, and the average worker made $16 to 18 dollars , and 85% had health care.Now, what Walmart did was legal. But , in my opinion it is unethical. The modern wealthy are supremely interested in just getting wealthier... at the expense of exploiting the poor.It seems that greed rules the day, and Laissez faire economics does not allow for a healthy distribution of wealth. I think the government SHOULD get involved, and put the kind of proper regulation into place to insure that people do get a proper wage for honest work.There is what is currently legal, and then there is was is ethically and morally correct.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

That is one approach. I can agree with that to some degree, but I think there should be incentives to companies to , well, pay reasonable wages.. .. The idea of 'adequate food/healthcare/housing' can be so flexible, and I want people to have incentives to work. I realize not every one can, but I know some people in the system that need it for healthcare.... they can't earn more than a certain amount or lose the healthcare they need that allows for them to work.And I know some others that take advantage of the system to be bums.

Those are good options. Another could be an 'exploitation tax'.. where upper management is taxed at a higher rate if they make more than a certain times more than the hourly wages of the average employee. like an extra 2% if you make more than 10 times the wage of the average employee, and as that 'times' value goes up, so does the amount you get taxed .. (including, of course, stock options). That basically either causes the company to either pay their upper echelon less, or pay the average employee more.

For one 'If you give tax cuts to the rich, there are more jobs' is a lie is one big one.And if you 'If you shrink government, you cause jobs'