Does unequal balance of wealth indicate anything other than...?

Question

...one's ability to exploit others for one's own good?

Granted businesses succeed/fail based upon viability but regardless - every business that is successful and results in one individual's disproportionate amassing of wealth garners that wealth from the exploitation of others to some degree.

CEOs exploit their workers and reap the benefits of others' labors.
Even lottery winners benefit at the exploitation of the losers.

?

Considering we are all equal in the eyes of God; why does the GOP party (which by and large is the God-touting party although their actions by and large are an abomination to scripture - go figure) endorse with such zeal the exploitation of the masses for the benefit of the few?

This philosophy also seems to be in direct contradiction of the GOP party's other supposed tenet of "get Big Brother Gov't off my back" as the party without fail benefits the wealthiest of the exploiters while ignoring the needs of America as a whole.

my money for your labor- that is not exploitation
<<<<<<<<<<<

yes it is - without the exploitation of your workers there would be no money which you call "yours"

Answer 1

Unequal balance of wealth could come about for a variety of reasons. Some people may just work harder, or have better natural ability, than others. As such, they will earn more. Some people may be better at saving or have fewer needs and wants than others. They will be able to accumulate more. Some people are more innovative than others, and come up with new uses for existing wealth, effectively multiplying what they have.

To characterize the accumulation of wealth as "exploitation" is unfair and inaccurate. If we are involved in a voluntary exchange- my money for your labor- that is not exploitation. If we weren't both made better off, one of us would choose not to exchange at all.

A "hands-off" government approach will often benefit the wealthiest very much, that much is true. But is that so wrong? If the poor are not made any worse off, why shouldn't those of exceptional ability be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor, and freely pass them on to whoever they like? Is it moral to take what rightfully belongs to one who has earned, and give it to another who has not?

Answer 2

Let's see.

Raised a D.

Graduated HS in 1964

Worked my way thru college (only a $2,000 student loan and little help from my widowed mother.)

Became an R in 1965, before I had 2 nickels to rub together.

BA in 1968.

Married in 1970.

MBA in 1981.

Worked for 30 years.

Saved 20% of my income for most of those years.

Lived simply, without a lot of 'stuff'.

Never made more than $55,000/year.

Retired at age 52 with well over $1 Million net worth.

Donated generously to charities, both time and money.

Tried to help people who were willing to go out and succeed.

Paid lots of taxes.

Nope. The fact the I've got enough to last me for the rest of my life is because I worked hard and saved much. Not because I exploited others.

BTW: The wealthiest people in America are DEMOCRATs, not republicans.

Answer 3

the days of exploitation are over for the most part in this country...ever hear of a labor union?

How about a fair days work for a fair days wage?

Thats capitalism