Is it even possible to become wealthy without exploiting someone else?

[Hugabear]

I was wondering, is it even possible to become rich and wealthy without someone else having to be exploited? Even the lottery isn't free of exploitation, quite far from it. Much of the money that goes into the lottery pool comes from the poor and lower-middle class, who are hoping for that "get-rich-quick" chance. Entertainment industry? Not so much. You might be a very talented singer, but to make it really big, you have to rely on the exploitation of others to get you to the top (album production, touring production, etc). Acting? Nope, still plenty of people have to support you. Inheritance? Maybe you didn't exploit others, but whoever left you that money did. Even if you somehow strike oil, you aren't going to get all that oil out of the ground yourself.

Are there any methods to become wealthy that don't exploit others?

[Burma Jones]

1. Well, all of life is exploitation isn't it?

Now, unjust exploitation is a different matter.

[OHdem10]

2. Can you become rich ethically. I think so.

[panader0]

3. What would Che say?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Why would Che matter?

[rug]

4. No.

[The_Commonist]

5. I suppose it depends on what you mean by exploit?

Exploiting is necessarily bad.
I can pay someone a decent wage, and it's still exploitation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. What do you mean by wealthy?

It is possible to be wealthy in the ways that matter without exploiting people. In fact, I'd say that they are mutually exclusive.

[Angry Dragon]

7. I read an article years ago about a man

that was retiring and sold the business that he and his workers had built up over the years.
It was sold for millions of dollars. He then gave each of the employees a portion of sale price.
I do not remember the exact amount, but at the time it impressed me.
I would venture a guess that over the years this man did not exploit his workers.

[htuttle]

8. Behind every great fortune without apparent cause is a crime

"Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu'il a été proprement fait." -- Honoré de Balzac, 1835

(on edit: better translation)

[Nikia]

9. It depends what you mean by exploitation

I assume that you would count successful professional athletes as exploiters because there are poorly paid stadium workers and maybe the high cost of tickets.
Do all workers who are paid more than other workers exploit them? For example, is an engineer exploiting the workers who make the product? Does a scientist who has help from a lab tech exploit that person? Does anyone who works in a building with a janitorial staff exploit them? Are we exploiting people who are poorly paid for their labor almost any time we buy a product?

[rfranklin]

19. The cost of the hot dogs and the beers is the real exploitation...

Jeez, $13 for a can of Heinekin at the Prudential Center during a Devils game. It's enough to make you give up drinking!

[WinkyDink]

10. You are mistaking "others doing work" ("album production") for "exploitation." Check Webster's.

[socialist_n_TN]

14. Yeah, I was thinking something along those lines too...........

I think that the arts areas are LESS exploitative than a lot of other areas. Most artists (in every field of the arts) start with very little, except their talent and most are employers of only themselves, at least at first. Even when they DO hire, it's mostly as a contractor hiring other independent contractors on a piecework basis.

That's not saying that an artist can't be exploitative, just that since it's usually an individually based endeavor, there's more room for ethics to be paramount. Unlike most (all) capitalist endevours.

[Fumesucker]

11. Possible? Yes, I think it is probably so..

Likely? No, not particularly.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Theoretically, if you're patient and clever at business.

[Rage for Order]

13. Yes. n/t

[conspirator]

15. The question is how rich do you need to be to feel safe?

I would be happy with a self sufficient farm and a Weapons Factory (To defend my farm).
A lot of rich people have long passed the minimum safety net. they exploit others for sport and because they can.

[The Wielding Truth]

16. Yes, you can make a product or give a service that has value.

If people pay what they think it is worth to them and you manage your life frugally, you can become rich. There is no exploitation. There is fair trade when the buyer pays freely in a situation that is affordable and has common value. It has been done by millions and will continue. Things are so tainted now, with greed as a family value, that reality becomes veiled .

[badtoworse]

17. Exploitation does not necessarily have a negative connotation

Some of the meanings I've seen refer to using something to maximum advantage. Other definitions suggest unethical conduct.

I believe it is possible to become rich without acting unethically. If you start a business, pay your employees fairly, sell your product at a reasonable price and the business is so successful that you become rich, is that exploitation? Arguably, it is, but I don't see anything unethical about it.

[blindpig]

20. Only if you do all of the work.

When ya think about it this includes almost no one. Even entertainers generally have large support staffs who are paid considerable less, someone must print an author's books.

[Nye Bevan]

25. So if you start your own company, treat your workers extremely well,

pay excellent wages, and provide great benefits, you are still "exploiting" them?

[BobbyBoring]

21. Of course it is

I was fortunate enough to know a few that did. One who was a dear friend started a frozen food business many years ago. Animals were exploited as they were prepared for consumption at a later day by the smart animals, but as far as people go they were treated very well. The employees were well paid and given all kinds of perks. To me that was an ideal business model. Providing goods that people needed and hiring people to make them.

That was so long ago though. It seems too many people aren't happy unless they're screwing someone. People aren't happy unless they're squeezing every penny out of whatever their business is~

[Statistical]

22. Aggregate wealth has been increasing for centuries.

It certainly is possible. However often it isn't done.

A simplistic example.

The entire world consists of 10 farmers. Using their hands they produce 100 bushels of wheat per year.

The aggregate wealth for planet is 1000 bushels of wheat.
The wealth is divided as follows
farmers 1-10: 100 bushels each.

One farmer realizes that using a "plow" would increase production. He stops being a farmer, invents a plow, and spends the year building, and selling plow to the other farmers. There is no money in this world so the farmer sells the plow to each farmer for 20 bushels of wheat from next years harvest.
The plow is more effective and increases the PRODUCTIVITY of each farmer. They now produce 150 bushels of wheat each year.

The aggregate wealth for the planet is now 1500 bushels of wheat (50% gain in world GDP).
The wealth is divided as follows
Farmers 1-9: 130 bushels each (30% increase in wealth)
Plow Inventor: 180 bushels (80% increase in wealth)

A win-win situation. Sure the farmers aren't as wealthy as the plow inventor but they are wealthier than they would have been without the plow.

Wealth is merely stored productivity. As long as productivity can increase it is POSSIBLE to increase your share without the detriment of others).

[Igel]

23. Define "exploit."

A lot of times it's defined selectively: Now it means one thing, now it means another.

Take the lottery. Sure, it's exploitation. Exploitation willingly entered into by people who want to pool their funds in order to have disproportionate benefits. You may get nothing out of it; you may get a little bit; or you may get a far larger payout than you'd expect from your small contribution to the pool.

Now, here's the question: How does that differ from insurance, whether homeowner's, health, or unemployment? People voluntarily put in money in order to have disproportionate benefits. They may get nothing out of it; a little bit; or, the real reason for participating, you may get a far larger payout than what you put in. Unemployment compensation is not voluntary; health insurance will be less voluntary--with the proviso that some will not have to pay anything in order to get their benefits. It's rather like saying the bottom 4% of the economic contiuum get free lottery tickets.

Now, I could tweak the definition to make sure that all and only the "right" people are judged exploiters. The definition will get hairier and hairier to maintain the distinction that's desired, or it will become more and more class-conscious. When the latter happens then the definition is a kludge and based largely on inequality of outcomes.

I see a lot of kids. They're unequal. There's no reason to make them equal--and, in fact, no way to make them equal. The kid with a tin ear *can* learn perfect pitch, given 100 years of full-time instruction. The kid with no math ability can have it increased, but it's not going to equal the 14-year-old 10th grader acing AP calculus and physics.

The very special freshmen I knew in grad school who were taking graduate level classes in Classical Greek had an advantage that few will ever overcome--they grew up fluent in Attic Greek because it was the language their father started to speak to them in when they were in kindergarten and had read Aeschylus in Greek in middle school just for fun. At the same time, the kid in Spanish who grew up speaking Spanish has an edge. Inequality of talents, skills, temperaments *should* be exploited. Otherwise let's have a random drawing for jobs, from US president down to doctor to teacher to garbage man.

[chaska]

24. All wealth comes from nature. To have more than another, one must....

rob another's share. To have more than another, over and above ones fair share, one must rob from another. And one's fair share, while debatable, is not huge. Wealth as we commonly use the term damages nature. And all life is diminished.