Is it wrong for a wealthy person to take a job someone else could have?

[grasswire]

I know a middle aged man who inherited a great deal of money some years ago. (His father escaped Europe in the 30s and built a fortune in America and gave most of it away to his children ten years ago.)

In this economy, the middle aged man feels guilty about having a fortune stashed away. He invests in sustainable renewable interests. He thought about giving the fortune away but didn't.

And then this year he took a job with a non-profit organization that works on issues of homelessness.

But there's some ethical dilemma here. Is it wrong for someone who will never need to work taking a paying job? He doesn't give away the salary or refuse it. He lives on it, keeping his fortune intact.

[stray cat]

1. No - whats wrong with wanting to contribute versus sitting around?

[grasswire]

7. there are other ways to contribute

....and he has the power to utilize any number of ways. He could volunteer. He could donate his salary. He could give away part of the fortune to Habitat for Humanity or some other entity if the fortune is a burden.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. No.

[bbinacan]

3. No n/t

[EOTE]

4. I believe that would be morally wrong.

I can't quite understand how he reconciles feeling guilty about having his fortune stashed away while taking a job in this economy which could be going to someone who actually needs money. If unemployment weren't an issue now, I think it would be far less of a problem.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. It's morally wrong to take a job with a non-profit that benefits the homeless?

[EOTE]

28. If that job could instead go to someone who has an actual need for the money, yes.

Jobs are very hard to come by in this economy. To take one when you don't need one and millions of others are looking for one, yes I think that would be morally wrong.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. Who gets to determine that need?

[EOTE]

34. If you're hungry or without a home, that means you're in need.

And while you can get into lots of subjective arguments as to what constitutes that "need", it's clear that there are millions of people in need in this country while the person taking that job definitely is not needy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. How much money does one have to have to not need income?

[EOTE]

38. A "great deal" as is mentioned in the OP.

If you have a "great deal" of money and are "wealthy" as listed in the OP, then I think it's morally wrong to take a job from someone who could use it to remove their self from poverty or homelessness. I don't know specifically what that number is, but it's obvious from the OP that this person could not work a day in his life and still live comfortably.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. Unless the OP is managing his portfolio they have no idea how wealthy he is.

Perhaps he made bad investments, perhaps he has invested in long term interests that don't provide annual income, perhaps he has a handicapped child whose future he is concerned about, etc. I don't think it is wise to pass judgement on someone else's needs especially without knowing every detail. We don't seem to like it when the other side says that no one needs medical marijuana or GLBT people don't need to get married.

[EOTE]

56. The OP says the person is wealthy.

And later mentions that he has many millions. That's enough to live comfortably for life in my opinion. The OP is assuming this to be the case when asking the question. The OP is specifically asking if, given these circumstances, would a person like this be doing the right thing. To conflate what I'm doing with the "other side" is laughable. I said that what he did was morally wrong because I certainly don't think it should be legally wrong. The other side wants to legally prevent GLBT people from getting married and medical marijuana recipients from getting their medicine. I was simply making a moral call based upon a scenario, not a person.

[Boojatta]

51. "morally wrong to take a job from"

Who owns the job? How does someone go about taking a job? It sounds like stealing if it's simply taken from the person who owns it. Can somebody take a job without any authorization from anybody?

[hamsterjill]

5. He has a right to be paid for working, but...

If I were in his shoes, I would volunteer for the non-profit, rather than being a paid employee.

[rfranklin]

6. That's the correct answer...

nt

[grasswire]

8. even if he did that, he would be taking the job...

...that someone else could do for money and benefits.

[clear eye]

14. Why should the non-profit lose the benefit of someone they think is best

at doing the job, b/c he happens to have assets? How could he know that the next person it is offered to wouldn't also have personal wealth. If he's been investing his legacy in more socially responsible but likely less profitable investments, with the reality of the falling dollar, you don't even know how much real buying power it has left.

Saying that you think he shouldn't keep the job even as a volunteer, hints strongly that you think you or your SO would get the job if he left. I doubt that's true. You should probably turn your mind in more mentally healthy directions.

[grasswire]

30. you should probably not make any assumptions

Nobody that I know or am related to is remotely associated with his place of employment or interested in working there.

[clear eye]

39. If he slipped you 1/2 a mil or so, I bet you'd stop caring about anyone needing his job. n/t

[grasswire]

42. are you nuts??

Do you not understand the idea of having a discussion on a moral question?

[clear eye]

50. You say that a rich person shouldn't do anything socially constructive even as a volunteer

for fear it might take a job from someone w/ less money (of course there's no guarantee of that), and you ask me if I'm nuts?

[mntleo2]

19. Agree he is wrong to take that job for pay

...While large non-profits are notorious for paying low wages (and I hate to say it, their "CEOs" are not much different than private industry, they often rake in the bucks while paying their subordinates crap), it is better to give that job to someone who needs a wage to live on.

Often the wealthy just do not get it. Their entitlement to community resources is stunning, including entitlement to jobs that low income families need.

Low income families actually pay a much higher percentage in taxes than he does and their families suffer horribly because of that alone. This is true across the board in all states: http://www.itepnet.org/wp2000/text.pdf. I spoke with Dr McIntyre, one of the researchers on this study and he says since this publication, it has gotten even worse for low income families and their burden for paying for our infrastructure. Meanwhile wealthy people pay often nothing and get to enjoy them even more because they can afford to use them, such as the use of our commons with the courts for their wealth-making, their industries use of our roads, utilities, and use of pleasures such as our stadiums that a poor family who suffered with the taxes they paid for it, could never even dream to enter.

Ask your friend what his tax shelters do for anyone but him and his rich investors that leave the poor to pay for his resources. It will more than cancel out whatever he is doing at that non-profit, I bet! Your rich friend may think he is being so holy for "working" for a living, especially at a "non-profit" which is really often a corporation that does not pay taxes, but in truth he is just taking up space from someone who really needs that work to feed their family.

Pee Ess: All non-profits are not alike, smaller more progressive ones are actually creating work models that give workers and clients a voice. But the biggest ones are exploitive, demeaning and punitive to their workers and their clients. I will name names here: Goodwill, Salvation Army, and the "mega-community non-profits" that are large local entities are sometimes as bad. Take it from me, I have been both a non-profit worker and a client.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[noiretextatique]

24. i work for a larger non-profit

and i am appalled by the corruption, greed, and incompetence of the executives. i suppose i expect it in for profit companies, and i am not so naive as to not expect it here. it is just the audacious nature in which they screw over employees and enrich themselves...i didn't expect them to be so open about it. i hope to kick them to the curb real soon.

[mntleo2]

48. NonP's have been convicted of fraud and still ...

...get those large multi-million dollar contracts for "services." I am not making this up!

Goodwill has been convicted by Wisconsin for fraudulent practices, and they aren't the only still-contracted entities in that state who've been caught for fraud. Still these entities are the ones the State turns to for contracting. The only reason we know about WI is that vigilant volunteers have done the math and demanded the records. Many know WI is not the only state, but nobody is watching and who knows how much when nobody is held accountable and no government officials know what is going on?


One might ask to whom these "services" are serving as they certainly do little for the people the non-profit is in existence to serve. Furthermore their record for the amount they got compared to the services they provided is piddly ~ Goodwill in Wisconsin for instance, gets over $56,000 per client in government subsidies for a few thousand dollars worth of services provided ~ and in that state they took in nearly $100 MILLION dollars from the government last year for that state alone, besides the private donations they also rake in. http://www.welfarewarriors.org/MWV_Archive%5Cs01%5Cs01--bwe--bus_tour.htm .

Lots of activists do not want to talk about the fraud and greed with these practices ~ and non-profits use this reluctance to the core. As they treat their clients, they are like controlling, punitive fathers who will withhold their support should it become public what they do. The activists' fear is that, if people know how bad it is, they will stop donating and the few services these non-profits actually provide will stop altogether and nobody will get served. I say these non-profits are selective and fraternal about whom they serve and whether or not they do serve them, and the client is made to feel like crap anyway. Perhaps the ones doing this should get a taste of their own medicine and be held like a welfare mother is when she is convicted of fraud ~ jail and pay it back! Instead these non-profits do far worse than she did and get awarded with more money.

What is wrong with this picture People?


I ask the following and think more people should demand accountability with where their tax dollars are going to large non-profits in DETAIL: What in the hell is this "do-good-ery" doing for the world except give rich people tax breaks and employ multi-millionaires to take even more out of the mouths of the poor?

Crickets ...

Cat In Seattle

[noiretextatique]

52. i will be sending letters to the board when i leave

and to the local paper. the corruption here is bleeding the place dry. i agree with you: we should demand more accountability, instead of assuming the do-goodery is actual helping the people the agency is supposed to be serving. only a few a the top are actually being served here.

[clear eye]

25. We don't know from the OPer how much the legacy is. Odds are she doesn't know either.

It could be as little as $100K, which would mean that he could live very frugally for a maximum of 4 years on it. How does she (or he for that matter) know that the person who would get the job if he left wouldn't be even wealthier? How does she know that he doesn't need the medical insurance, as medical expenses can be in the millions if you are unlucky enough to get seriously ill or injured?

She is directing her distress over the bad economy onto someone who had no part in causing it. He may even be improving it by investing into job-producing clean industry, despite its lower rate of return. I think she is in a very dark place, and won't be helped by validation.

[grasswire]

32. it is many millions

more than ten, less than 17.

Yes, there is some value in investing in good industries. That is aside from the central question at hand.

Should a person of wealth take a paying job that could support another worker's family?

[mntleo2]

55. yeah a dark place ~ for the poor, not the rich

...I am sorry but the rich live off the backs of the poor. Period.

Read the links on taxes I gave above and you will realize the poor's contribution to communities is far more than the rich with a far greater burden on their families. Do *not* tell me the rich give more ~ what they give is far less than what they keep and what they keep would provide sometimes thousands of families at a nice income in addition to their own take.

Just do the math.

In my state the poor pay about 20% of their incomes in taxes, the rich 5%.

20% from $10,000 = 8,000 to live on per year
5% of $1,000,000 = $950,000 to live on per year

Now ask yourself if you could live on less than $666.00 a month while the other could live off of almost $80,000 per month, which is better off and who paid the higher price because of the taxes they pay? Many poor do not think they pay taxes, but in truth the welfare mom actually pays a much higher percentage of her paltry income than a rich man because it is included in her rent, her utilities, her transportation, all her household goods, the list goes on and on.

I guess it is the "Quaker" in me, I take Jesus' words to heart when he told the rich man to, "Sell everything you have, give it to the poor and follow what I am trying to teach you ..." He knew then as it is now, the rich live off the backs of the poor. They cannot have that much and not do that. Having way more than you need is taking out of the mouths of others.

It is the fault of the rich that there is a dark place for the rest of us. We pay for their greed in many ways, but especially in the benefits they enjoy off our taxes that cost us far more than it does them ~ if they pay anything at all, which many do not.

Just sayin' ...

Cat In Seattle

[grasswire]

74. thanks for your thoughtful reply (eom)

[barbtries]

9. i don't think so.

he's working for a paycheck and deserves a paycheck, and it sounds to me as if he is doing good things with his fortune. first reaction, i see nothing wrong with what he is doing.

[LisaM]

10. Why doesn't he hire others?

I can see the moral dilemma here. I've often wondered the same thing - if I won the lottery, should I work? Or should I move on, so someone else can have a job? I've thought about it a lot, and I go with the latter every time.

[Brickbat]

11. Wow. No.

I find this question bizarre.

[Ikonoklast]

12. No, It's not an issue for me.

If he still feels the need to produce his own income in order to maintain that he is self-reliant, so be it.

Who is to say that he may lose his fortune one day?

I know a few people like that, they have no real need to work, but it gives them a feeling of accomplishment to still be productive memebers of society.

[rd_kent]

13. NO. And in the case you mentioned, he MAY be providing jobs to others through HIS job.

Its not all about the money......

[abluelady]

15. I Think About That All the Time

I know many people who do not need the salary they earn. With unemployment so high, I don't understand how they can take a job away from someone who needs it. I may need a job for health insurance soon. It bothers me that I will take a job away from someone who needs to feed their children as well as needs health insurance. But that's just me.

[clear eye]

18. Medical costs can still be ruinous to prosperous-seeming people.

It's one thing to be upset w/ the head of a failed and larcenous bank for continuing to take gobs of undeserved money, especially if it's taxpayer money. It's another to eat yourself up w/ envy over every working, health-insured person you see who has a bit put away for retirement. That way lies mental imbalance.

[grasswire]

40. huh??

Who is eating oneself up with envy over what??

I'm scratching my head here.

Wow.

[clear eye]

53. Responding to post #15. n/t

[azmouse]

16. I think it depends on the job.

He's doing something more than just working on a production line in a job anyone could do. If he has special skills that can be use to benefit others than by all means he should do what he can to help.

I would like to work right now but my husband and I don't need the money to get by. I don't have any special skills or education that would be of benefit so I let someone else who may really need the income have the job that I would take.

[cayanne]

17. Of course not.

Everyone is entitled to work, even when the economy is tanked.

[liberal_at_heart]

20. I would never knock someone for working for a non-profit

A wealthy person is working for a non-profit and contributing to society? That's a good thing. You said he invests in renewables. That is good. Does he do any philanthropy work? It seems the whole world is having a conversation about capitalism right now. It's my opinion that philanthropy is the only way capitalism can work. He has a chance to make a great contribution to society if he can do something like that.

[cali]

21. no. what an insane post. and if he weren't working you'd call him a leech on society

[mitchum]

22. In our meritocracy,he is getting by on his own merits

"snort"

[mikeSchmuckabee]

23. Not at all

Hopefully he does his job admirably. Someone had to do it, and he was chosen.

Perhaps he has something else to feel guilty about. J/K.

[SoCalDem]

27. What's wrong, is that he chooses to TELL people about his stasted loot

If he lives frugally on the money he earns, why tell people about his stash.

But there is no "requirement" that a wealthy person resign form the labor force, nor should there be:) Who would set the requirements of wealth that would trigger a retirement?

[noamnety]

29. Perhaps we should focus more on the obscenely rich millionaires in Congress

getting rich on their tax-funded salaries while they work to funnel more of our dollars to CEO's.

I think that's more of a problem than working for a nonprofit to care for the homeless.

[bikingaz]

64. Fully agreed. Stupid discussion to start with

On this premise, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and all the Wall Street gazillionaires should stop working and let us take their jobs & salaries.

[ecstatic]

33. He may be the best person for the job

He's there because he wants to be, not because he wants a paycheck.

[Morning Dew]

36. When I win the lottery

that's exactly why I'd quit my job - I'd feel guilty that I was taking a job when others were out of work.

:evilgrin:

[crimsonblue]

37. No.

If he is qualified for the job, his finances should have absolutely no bearing on whether or not to hire him.

[Zywiec]

43. What about a working couple who could get by on a single salary?

Should one of them quit so another unemployed person could get a job?

Of course not!

:crazy:

[noamnety]

45. I sort of had that suggested to me this year.

We've facing paycuts beginning next paycheck.

It was suggested in an all-employee email (from a single person) that maybe the people in two income families should volunteer to work for less salary.

I felt like I had regressed 50 years, which is almost exactly how long ago my mother lost her merit-based scholarship because she got married - and thus "didn't need a career."

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

44. He should quit

Then you can start another post saying "Aren't you sick of these lazy trust fund babies who contribute nothing to society?"

[grasswire]

46. this thread is revealing in ways I didn't anticipate

There's an awful lot of strong feelings from people who project whole other issues on the question.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

47. It's not a whole other issue

If he wasn't working, there would be people complaining about that too. Would you?

[Obamanaut]

49. If the guy is qualified and his performance is acceptable it is of no

concern to anyone what his bank account looks like. He is being paid to do a job and is doing it.

We really do hate rich people here, unless they are democrats in congress. This is just so pitiful.

[dysfunctional press]

54. there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.

although, if i were in his shoes- it wouldn't be an issue.

[alittlelark]

57. I quit doing voice work 3-4 years ago when I realized how many

people really needed the $$$. I was doing it for a lark. I was competing against ppl supporting families. It was fun and extra cash, but we were more than well off enough w/o the $$$.

It also kinda sucks being stuck in a small recording booth for hours.

[martymar64]

58. Yes

[wordpix]

59. there are a lot of people like your acquaintance

I live in DC and there are spouses of highly paid people who take jobs like that here, as well as those who inherit. It seems to me they would help everyone more by volunteering instead of taking jobs other people really need.

When employers do job interviews, they don't ask about the candidates' bank accounts, so the employers choose who they want, rich, poor or in between.

[clear eye]

65. The OPer later stated that she didn't want him doing the job even as a volunteer

b/c it "might" still take a job from someone.

Non-profits often need at least one person w/ connections in wealthy circles to help in fundraising. (Poor people somehow just don't give as much.) If the subject of the OP is filling a position like that, than any replacement would be someone at least as wealthy.

Even if he's doing another job, who's to say any replacement would be more needy than he? He also helps create jobs, according to the OP, by investing in "green" manufacturing companies despite their lower rate of return than a unfiltered portfolio would have.

It appears to me that the OPer has an unhealthy fixation on this acquaintance's assets, and an equally unhealthy need to find a reason to disapprove of him.

For gosh sakes, the guy has already expressed discomfort with unearned wealth that was a product of heaven knows what enterprise, is devoting his life to a good cause, lives modestly, and invests his wealth toward correcting global warming and the benefit of humankind. I wish all rich people were that socially responsible. But still the OPer needs to find some reason to declare him morally reprehensible and get others to back her up, as like as not so she can beat him over the head by showing him the thread.

In my eyes, a big fail.

[grasswire]

73. certifiable

You've been watching too much television.

[bik0]

60. The gov't has tax credits to incent employers to hire those in need

The Fed gov't has several programs that give employers tax credits for hiring those receiving gov't assistance (food stamps etc), those who are displaced by Katrina, unemployed Iraq and Afghan veterans etc. These tax credits are worth $1,500 to $9,000 per hire.

It wouldn't make sense to pass a law that dictates that all things being equal (skills, education etc.) that the neediest applicant get the job or to exclude those with a higher net worth from getting jobs.

[RobinA]

61. No

There's more to a job than money.

[DaveinJapan]

62. What if he's the most qualified person for the job?

Perhaps, if he's got excellent skills, he'd be the guy who makes things that much better for homeless people AND manages to create lots MORE jobs through his projects and campaigns for the homeless.

Something that might otherwise never have happened.

Just some food for thought for the ones claiming "morality" dictates the guy should just stay home.

[bik0]

63. Morality cannot be the deciding factor

It would be crazy to hire based on the need of the job applicant. The needs of the many are more important than the need of one. The person who gets the job is in a position to help many more people so that job should go to the most qualified.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. If he really wanted to altruistic, he could donate his time and train

someone for the paying job.

[Darth_Kitten]

67. In a sense, yes.

If he wishes to work, volunteer.

But then again, people have to make their own calls, so what does it matter what I think. ;)

[MrsMatt]

68. Maybe he just doesn't want to end up like

Paris Hilton?

FFS, you have no idea what his true and actual financial situation is, unless you are his accountant (in which case, I'd sure as hell fire you if I knew you were divulging personal information).

Have you ever considered that this person, as someone who is NOT financially dependent, is critical to the overall integrity of the organization? I worked at a non-profit org, with an extremely wealthy individual (albeit, a volunteer), who felt free enough to confront the president when she felt that his some of policies would hurt the other staff. She was critical to the other staff for the stability of their positions - we went through more than one financial crisis, and I know she helped a lot of staff members keep their jobs (yes, those who NEEDED the money).

Consider the benefits beyond this one person's financial situation - that's what thinking people do.

on edit - changed a spelling error

[Rebubula]

69. Yes

All rich people should commit suicide and donate their estates to the poor.


Is that what you are going for here?

Many people worry way to much about what other people do. This action by your friend does no real harm to anyone. Any harm is existential.

His job is helping people out....seems like an ethical wash - assuming that it is any of your business.

[Xenotime]

70. If he is going to take a job.. he should have to give up his wealth.

You shouldn't be allowed to collect more money once you have more than you need.

[Rebubula]

72. You are kidding, right?

Oh...probably not


LOLZ

[wishlist]

71. Obviously having great wealth was not enough to satisy him

This guy apparently likes the gratification and feeling of self-worth that a salaried position gives him and likes feeling secure in keeping his huge nest egg intact, regardless of the fact that taking the job deprived someone else from a good career opportunity and chance to make a living.

Many people who don't need money continue working for a salary because of a combination of greed, ego gratification and/or because they believe they are uniquely qualified in a special capacity and deserve the position and that no one else would be as good.

Although I have only a small fraction of his wealth, I made the opposite and very conscious choice to retire early (after training my replacements) rather than continue enhancing my career and finances. Instead I have been working helping my family more (including elderly parents) and on a variety of volunteer community efforts where I would not be taking a paying job from someone else. I could not in good conscience continue working for a salary, but everyone has different motivations and values and selfish and unselfish qualities that are manifested differently so I would not want to judge anyone else based on my preferences.

[bigwillq]

75. No (nt)

[grasswire]

76. I should have asked the question without the anecdote.

Because far too many people are going off on tangents elicited by my mentioning a particular person's situation.

Is it wrong for a wealthy person to take a job someone else could have?

That is the total question. A discussion of a dilemma rooted in the new economy, where millions of children, veterans, and seniors are going hungry and homeless.

Like it or not, a new morality of personal economics needs defining. Is it wrong to walk away from your mortgage? Is it wrong to marry for health care coverage? Is it wrong for a wealthy person to take a job that someone else could have? Should we own a gun? Should Grandma come to live? Am I prepared for losing my job?

If questions like that shake us up, that's a good thing. All of us are going to be faced with questions we never thought we'd face in America in our lifetimes.

[cynatnite]

77. Work just as hard as everyone else and they can do what they want with the money they earn. n/t