[snikeris]

I was once a happy employee of Sam's Club, which is owned by Walmart. They paid more than other jobs available to me, I was provided a 15 minute break every two hours, good times.

I didn't feel like anyone was spitting in my face when I read the article.

[specialist]

FWIW, Starbucks copied its profit sharing (and other ideas) from Sam Walton. Walton's bio pop biz book was widely read (early 90s). Starbucks was considered very progressive for the time (by us "carpet walkers", what the blue collar workers called us office workers). Lot's of happy worker bees.

But at some point, Walmart took a hard turn to the right.

And to my own shame, I didn't understand how anti-labor Starbucks was at the time. There was always grumblings and heresay. It was easy to dismiss as sour grapes and cranks. Then Schultz became a candidate for President and all the knives came out.

Moving forward, I just want what's fair. I don't understand how it's okay for the top of the heap to become billionaires while the minions are making starvation wages. It doesn't have to be 50/50 even split of the spoils. But upgrading from 1/99 to 10/90 or even 20/80 would materially improve the lives of millions of people.

[rabidrat]

The median wealth in the US is $70k. The ratio is more like 1/100,000 for your average billionare, and 1/10,000,000 for zuckerberg, gates, and bezos. In this scheme 1/99 would be downright communistic.

[duhi88]

They could have afforded to pay you more, but they chose not to. You may or may not have been an outlier in the distribution of wages, but overall wages have not increased with productivity.

[renewiltord]

This is literally true for anyone who has savings above subsistence. We could all afford to pay people more or we would have no surplus in our bank account.

[NikolaeVarius]

Can I have all your money that is above subsistence?