Moral Contradictions

Monday, April 24, 2006

So what's more important?

Banning homosexuality so we can sleep better at night, or helping ease tension in families by stopping ridiculous trends explained in the following article:

"Twenty-six years ago, CEOs received an average of $10 for every $1 earned by a U.S. worker".... now "CEOs at larger U.S. corporations on average earn $430 for every $1 earned by the average U.S. worker."

I understand that CEO's have enormous responsibility and I do believe they should be compensated justly, but what's just about the retirement package of Exxon's Lee Raymond, especially in light of the current situation?

Don't you think Jesus would have something to say about this? Oh yeah, he did.

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:25)

Remember a time when the wife worked out of the house by choice, rather than necessity? If the wages situation was a bit more fairer in the country, do you think that would build stronger marriages and families?

Yet so many buy the snake oil that homosexuals are going to ruin their marriage and family life as we know it.

Wake up folks.


  • It's called diversion. As long as attention is riveted on such inane topics as gay marriage, the masses can't pay attention to the larger issues that affect their everyday lives. CEO pay costs the average worker money; what does gay marriage cost them?

    By Blogger Vivian J. Paige, at Tuesday, April 25, 2006 2:22:00 PM  

  • I'm not sure i understand what you want. Do you want him to divided his retirement package up by every person in the US (298.5 million) for a whopping $1.34 each, or Exxon's $36 billion for $120.00 each?

    Do you not understand market economy? I hate gas prices as much as you, but Bush can do NOTHING about this! No one is our government can! What good would a tax to Exxon do? Nothing to reduce our gas prices today.

    By Blogger John Mulholland, at Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:51:00 PM  

  • I do understand market economy, do you understand greed?

    By Blogger Nathan, at Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:18:00 PM  

  • So which do you want...the $1.34 or the $120.00?

    By Blogger John Mulholland, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:27:00 AM  

  • How about if he just divides that $400 million by Exxon's other 88,300 employees and gives each of them a $4500 bonus? Oh, heck, he's done such a good job racking up record profits while claiming consumer price hikes were "necessary" that I'll even let him keep a couple million of it. Let's let him have $5 million and the remaining Exxon employees can each have an extra $4475. Then maybe they can afford the gas they need to drive to work.

    By Blogger Mike, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:38:00 AM  

  • does that help you or i at the pump?

    By Blogger John Mulholland, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:37:00 PM  

  • John, I see where you're going with this, and with your in-the-box logic, I agree with you. However, the larger picture, which this post tried to address, is missing.

    Do you approve of the acclerating gap between the pay of executives versus workers, and if so, can you justify that outside of writing it off as "that's capitalism"?

    I see that issue in a moral light, and I believe others should too. If you want to debate redistribution of wealth, you're more than welcome to, but that wasn't what I was driving at. (ha I'm a dork... driving at).

    Mike - how much you wanna bet that the workers there get free gas, or at least a discount... that's worth looking into, actually.

    By Blogger Nathan, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:00:00 PM  

  • I guess i see class warfare being waged. And i don't like it. I'm not sure what the answer here is, but nothing, not a windfall tax, or anything is going to lower prices at the pump.

    By Blogger John Mulholland, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:33:00 PM  

  • John, it's not class warfare - it's taking steps to ensure that workers are fairly compensated. To ensure that they can live fairly close to where they work. To ensure that families can actually spend time being families and not spend all their time working to make ends meet - or be so stressed that they can't enjoy down time. To ensure that the Enrons, WorldComs, and Global Crossings don't repeat themselves.

    I have no idea how to address this problem - I have a basic understanding of how it got to be this way. I don't mind folks getting rich - I work in a small business and I completely understand profit motive. Yet, there's a point where you reach when things just get ridiculous as widespread greed is revealed. We've been at that point for quite a few years, only some folks are starting to wake up due to gas prices going up. It's more complicated than that.

    Again, this isn't about gas prices. People are starting to ask questions because of them, but that's not why I'm talking about this issue. Go through my blog archives and you'll find that I touch on this issue a bit, from various angles. I do rail about gas prices at times, but again, that's not the impetus. Heck, check out my latest post. It all interweaves into a common theme - greed isn't a Christian or American value, and it affects us more than homosexuality or other "family value" issues.

    They're a bit biased, but check out this page as they have some interesting facts:

    By Blogger Nathan, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:46:00 PM  

  • Well, I really wasn't suggesting that redistributing that retirement windfall would help lower gasoline prices, but rather that jacking up that gas price sky-high for dubious reasons shouldn't result in $400 million for the guy at the top. If sound management practice and cost savings, rather than price gouging, is responsible for having that much money just sitting around to be given away, it seems more morally responsible to distribute it among the people who did the work (and, again, even if you give the head honcho $5 million or $10 million--which is a lot more generous than any retirement package those of us in the real world will get--there's still money to distribute a bonus to those workers).

    I don't necessarily even want gasoline prices to fall (at least in theory -- it's harder to stay true to that principle when filling up my gas tank). We've built our societal house upon the sand of artificially low gas prices, and can likely benefit from a more realistic experience with the value of the limited resource we're overconsuming.

    By Blogger Mike, at Wednesday, April 26, 2006 5:16:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home