ays greed is “excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.” Gordon Gekko says, “greed is good.” Many other people say greed is bad. Commenters on Facebook and elsewhere, for example, often say greed is the reason companies do not pay their employees more. They also blame greed for many of the country’s societal and economic ills. Sometimes they are right, but usually, they are wrong. Let’s see if we can sort this out.

First, let’s observe that people are sloppy using the word “greed” by focusing on greed as the “excessive” desire for wealth or possessions. (I’m willing to stipulate that “rapacious” desires for wealth or possessions are unalloyed evil.) As discussed in my blog post, “Wealth,” a person poor enough to be in the world’s bottom billion would likely perceive a person on welfare in the United States to be greedy if the welfare recipient desired more wealth or possessions. The same would likely be true of an American on welfare considering whether a billionaire who desires more money evinces an “excessive” desire for wealth or possessions, whereas a trillionaire could believe that millionaires have insufficient desire to produce things that their fellow man needs or desires. In short, rather than being an objective statement of fact about someone, “greed” is usually merely an epitaph to malign someone the user of the word does not like.

Also, it’s unlikely that greed has ever been the sole motivation for anyone to create and pursue wealth. And even if there were a person who was solely motivated by greed, how could anyone but that person know her motivation(s)? Outward appearances would be the same whether the motivation was greed or something else, such as the desire for fame or the interest in inventing, developing, and selling something valued or useful to her fellow man. Motivation could also come from the desire to discover, create, work, or lead, to make jobs available for people in need, or to build up a nest egg for family security or charity. People can become wealthy because billions of consumers love their products (think Steve Jobs) or by winning a lottery. Still, there is rarely justification for assuming that greed was necessarily the motivation.

Despite this, many people believe greed is the cause of much human suffering. Perhaps so to some extent. However, the desire for more (e.g., income, wealth, the things those things make possible for people) is the primary motivation that has caused humans to invent, develop, manufacture, and deliver all of the wonderful non-natural beneficial things that are now available. Typically, the more people desire income, wealth, etc., the more likely they will be part of making more things that relieve human suffering or supply happiness. Consequently, excessive desire for income, wealth, etc., will usually result in a greater reduction in suffering and abundance of happiness.  The belief that greed is a major source of human suffering is based on little or no evidence, and typically ignores the cornucopia of benefits that human desire, even if excessive, bestows on humans.

Of course, excessive desire for wealth or possessions is very bad. (It’s a sin for God’s sake!) Excessive desire too often causes people to commit crimes and other sins. Wanting more money out of vanity is not a good look. I also think, however, that people falsely assume 1)  greed causes already-wealthy people to seek more money, and 2) people having great wealth is the reason other people are in need of food, clothing, and shelter. From these assumptions, people conclude that greed must be keeping wealthy people from sharing more with the poor, but they are wrong to jump to this conclusion.

Do you consider middle-income Americans wealthy? In a very real and relevant sense, they are. According to Wikipedia, John D. Rockefeller is the richest person in modern history. Rockefeller lived the first 74 of his 98 years before 1914, the year the first air conditioner was installed in a home. If he ever flew in a plane, it was very late in life; he did not go far, and the plane was relatively uncomfortable, dangerous, and unreliable. He never took his kids or grandkids to anything like Disneyland. His doctor and dentist had a tiny fraction of the knowledge, tools, procedures, pain relievers, and drugs available to middle-income people today. And he had fewer options for entertainment, as opportunities just weren’t the same back then. Was Rockefeller rich? You bet! Could he enjoy a lifestyle as good as a middle-income American today? In most respects, no. My guess is that very few, if any, middle-income people in America today would want to switch places with the richest man in modern history.[i]

Despite being rich in this sense, many middle-income people do not consider themselves rich. This is mostly because they see people who are vastly richer than themselves, and this makes them feel poorer than they are in terms of their absolute wealth. (They are rich compared to 99% of all humans who have ever lived. Yes, all Americans are in the top 1% by this standard.) Today people on welfare, people with middle incomes, and people with executive salaries perceive themselves as poor relative to others they see on a regular basis and on TV. They feel poor because feeling rich is not a function of absolute wealth. While individuals with larger incomes may have more security, people are going to see others with more money than them until they get to the wealth level of Bill Gates. It is normal to feel poor by comparison no matter where one falls on the income distribution curve. And it’s important to realize that the 540th billionaire in the U.S. sees most of the other 539 billionaires as having many multiples of her wealth (rightfully so). That person cannot be happy that her foundation cannot do nearly the amount of good works as the Gates Foundation because billionaire number 540 is a pauper by comparison.

The upshot is that essentially no individuals on the income curve consider themselves to be greedy because they want more than what they already have. There is no inherent correlation between absolute levels of wealth and greediness, so it is just as unfair for a poor American to call a wealthier American greedy as it is for a poor Pakistani to call a poor American greedy for wanting more. Some poor and rich Americans may be greedy, but their income levels have nothing to do with it.

The poorest U.S. billionaire, or the 540th person who wants to move up to the 539th spot, is not necessarily greedier than the middle manager who wants to be an executive manager or the mail clerk who wants to be a middle manager. Again, some people are greedy, and some people are not, irrespective of their income or status.

Having set the stage, let’s get back to a discussion of greed itself. Pretend you are a middle-income person in America. You post an ad to sell your car, which is worth $10,000. A person much poorer than you comes to your door and says she wants to buy the car, but she can only afford to pay $3,000 for it. Are you greedy if you say, “Thanks, but no thanks?” What if she then gives you a heart-wrenching and believable story about how financially desperate she and her family are and how, with your car, she could start an Uber business to make ends meet? If you turn down her offer again, would it be fair to consider you even greedier because you’ve heard her tale of woe?

The answer to the above questions is “no.” You are not greedy or greedier based on the above facts alone. (You may actually be greedy for some other reason, but turning down the offer is not evidence of greed.) The existence of financially desperate people is a real and important societal problem, especially for those who have had unfair disadvantages or bad luck. Each of us has societal obligations to do our part in addressing these problems, such as paying a fair share of taxes. Choosing to help the people who happen to knock on your door would be kind and good, but with few exceptions, you are not morally obligated to help everyone in need who stands before you. One reason for this is that it would be an astounding coincidence if the need of the person standing before you happens to be the most worthy candidate for the money you could spare for charity. Chances are, you would accomplish less total good by giving money to the person knocking on your door than to someone else, e.g., someone in even greater need.

Let’s take this to the next level. Say you are the owner of a janitorial service company. Your company makes enough profit for you to draw a salary of about $52,000 per year (the U.S. median income in 2016). The company’s janitorial jobs require relatively low skills, and although you only pay janitors the minimum wage, you routinely have three or more applicants for every job opening you have. What if an applicant for a janitorial job tells you a tragic story about why she needs a job and a wage of $2 per hour more than the minimum wage?

You would realize that the extra money would come out of your own pocket. If only one employee received an extra $2 per hour, that might not be so bad. But if word got out that someone was getting a higher wage (and it is hard to keep this kind of secret), you would have to deal with a bunch of angry employees demanding the same raise. Giving more employees a higher pay could put you out of business. Think about all the factors in this situation: 1) the local property, school, state, and federal income tax you pay, 2) the jobs you have created and how bad it would be for your employees if those jobs went away, 3) the charitable contributions you would not be able to make if the business went down, 4) the legality of paying minimum wage, and 5) your employees’ ability to improve their skills and establish a good work record and earning the good feeling of not being dependent on welfare.  You might conclude that you are doing more than many other people to address societal problems. You might also say to yourself, “I had nothing to do with the applicant not having the skills to justify the wage she desires.” Could anyone fairly call you greedy if you decided to hire the next person in line? I, for one, cannot see how paying the minimum wage or hiring the next person in line could fairly be described as an “excessive. . . desire . . . for wealth or possessions.” Yet the woeful applicant might very well assume that the owner of the janitorial service being greedy.

When it comes to employee pay in larger companies, the number of dollars and people involved are greater. Usually, there is a smaller percentage of employees who earn minimum wage, but everyone in the company wants to be paid more. In short, the same dynamics and issues confronting the janitorial service company are at play in large companies as well. The factors considered when it comes to employee pay in all companies rarely has anything to do with greed.

The Golden State Warriors basketball team pays its star player, Kevin Durant, $65 million a year. Do you think the team owners would not prefer to pay him $64 million or $32 million (or minimum wage)? Do you think the McDonald’s franchise owners want to pay their store managers more than the minimum wage? Do you think the board of directors (who usually own stock in the company) of any company wants to pay the CEO a penny more than it must to hire and keep him or her?  If you do, please think again. It is not an overstatement to say that all employers pay their employees more than they would prefer.

Obviously, owners would make more money if they paid their employees less. This is true of both greedy employers and employers who are not greedy. The reason employers do not pay less is that, in a free market, employers cannot pay much less than the value produced by an employee’s labor. If an employer were to attempt to pay much less than that amount, the employee would likely find another employer willing to pay the value of her labor—i.e., the employee on whom the employer makes too much money will soon be working at another company. This is because an underpaid employee in one company is an opportunity for profit for another company. If an employer pays its employees more than their labor is worth, the company must charge more for the products it sells to earn enough profit to stay in business. So, if companies pay employees substantially more than the value of their labor, their prices will be higher than their competitors’ prices for the same products. (We all know how that story would end.)

When the Warriors hired Durant, the owners must have believed that the value of him being on the team was worth more than his pay (otherwise they wouldn’t have offered to pay that much). If Durant was worth $66 million a year to the team, but the owners thought no other team would offer to pay him more than $64.9 million, it would have made sense for the owners to offer him $65 million. (That owners desire to make a profit on a $65 million investment should not be a surprise or something to be alarmed about. If owners do not expect to make money on their investment, they will not make the investment.) If Durant believed $65 million a year was the best offer he could get, he would agree to be “exploited” to the tune of $1 million per year (his other choice being to accept a $64.9 million offer from another team). Note that this describes a voluntary transaction in which both parties believe they will be better off after the deal — a win-win situation.

Was Durant being greedy? The team sells ticket, TV concessions, and everything else it can at prices that maximize team revenue. Both the team owners and Durant believe the team revenue would be greater if Durant was a part of it. The team revenue (what customers would pay) would be the same whether Durant was paid $1 or $65 million. How could Durant be greedy for wanting a large cut of the extra value he would bring rather than letting the team owners keep all the money he will bring to the team?

The main point is this: If one team does not offer Durant a salary near the value he would bring the team, some other team will. The same is true for franchise managers and every other job in the company. It should be obvious that the greediness of the employer is irrelevant to how much an employer pays its employees.

People often say employers exploit their employees by paying them too little. As noted above, employers do try to make money off of every employee because the whole point of a business is to make a profit, and a business that does not make a profit will not be in business for long. Also, as mentioned above, an unreasonably high profit on an employee creates a profit opportunity for other companies, i.e., other employers can hire that employee at a higher wage and make a reasonable profit on that employee. In this sense, in my example above Durant was “exploited” by $1 million per year.

Many of you may think that using the word “exploit” as I did above is crazy. Perhaps it is, but people talk about employers exploiting employees all the time. The only employee exploitation that can exist is the kind I described, and it is small (less than 2% of a salary in the Durant example). Paying people the market value of their labor should not be called exploitation. In a free and robust market, no other kind of employee exploitation can survive the incessant competition for valuable employees. (There are some exceptions, such as in tiny towns with few businesses, but the hue and cry about employee exploitation usually relate to large companies, such as Walmart, McDonald’s and the like, which are mostly in highly-populated areas.)

To many, exploitation is afoot anytime an employee is not paid “a living wage” or some other amount they consider to be fair. These people do not consider that the wage they prefer for others may be far above the value of the employee’s labor. Ignoring the labor’s value when discussing the price for labor is preposterous. If the value of an employee’s work is $0 (e.g., she digs holes and then buries them), then the entire amount paid to the employee is a gift from the employer to the employee. Any law that forces employers to pay more for labor than it is worth is exploitation of the employer.

A desire to force employers who have done something wrong to pay for their wrongdoing is good. A desire to have all employers of low-skilled worker punished with minimum wage laws is wrong. It is also wrong to desire people be punished on the presumption that they did something wrong. A desire that low skilled workers have a better life is good. A desire for laws that exploit people (e.g., employers of low-skilled workers) could fairly be called an “excessive desire,” a.k.a. “greedy.”

Someone who is disproportionately suffering from societal ills may deserve to receive more money than the value of what she can produce. In such a case, it may be the responsibility of society to fund appropriate supplemental payments, but responsibility for funding those payments certainly should not be placed on employers of low-skilled workers as a punishment for an imagined greed. Employers have given employees a source of income and job training that may not have otherwise been available. Exploiting employers of low-skilled workers by forcing them to pay to redress problems caused by society — problems that employers addressing to some extent — is fundamentally unfair. To label an employer as “greedy” for not wanting to be singled out and exploited in this fashion is akin to something out of the pages of Alice in Wonderland.

So, while there is some truth in Gordon Gekko’s take on greed, what he missed is more important than what he said.

Updated 2/20/2021

7 thoughts on “Greed”

  1. Harvey, while I understand, and agree with much of what you talk about regarding greed in the work place, I personally look at greed in a different way. Most of the examples that you posted were bilateral decisions, I’ll pay you this much for your car, you want more, or I will pay you so much for work, you want more…I see neither as greed. Greed is usually unilateral, accompanied by no sense of fairness, selfishness and ruthlessness. I see a tray of cookies and I take them all, regardless that there are hungry people behind me. In business, I impose conditions or prices on you unilaterally because I can. Greed is not tied to dollars and cents, as you indicated in your basketball example, that was clearly a bilateral transaction, neither side forced to do the deal. Having a life saving product that is unique, cost pennies to manufacture, selling it for a thousand dollars so you can pay yourself millions of dollars, that is greed. It is a unilateral decision made for significant monetary self gain, because you can. Your comments on various standards of life both here and abroad have little to do with greed. I am heartened when I see children in some of the poorer countries in Africa happy with smiles on their faces. They don’t need a lot to be happy. On the other hand, I see other countries in Africa where enormous riches and wealth from significant resources are in the hands of a very few, mostly the leaders of these countries and a few of their friends. They choose to keep all the cookies for themselves instead of sharing them with their people. Why? Because they can. To me, greed is a matter of the soul and ones personal character,

  2. Thanks, Wright, for sharing your thoughts on the subject.

    As I trust you can see, my initial blogs deal with topics that have many aspects. My goal is to discuss aspects that fall outside of the mainstream discussion of the topics. (I see little reason to rehash mainstream perspectives.) So, I necessarily omit from my blogs things that are important and true about every topic. Your comments remind us all of some important things about greed that I did not address – and that is a good thing. As I’m sure you noted, I said that some people are greedy and that greed is bad. Your comments underscore that reality.

    Ultimately we may disagree as to whether greed or some other bad traits are the causes of something we both believe is bad. Some acts appear to me to be mostly or exclusively motivated by greed. It appears more things appear to be motivated by greed to you than to me. Let’s sort out our possible disagreements about greed.
    We agree that greed is unilateral. A person either has an “excessive desire” (he or she is greedy) or a low, medium, or high but not “excessive desire” (he or she is not greedy).

    I too assume that a person who sees a tray of cookies and takes them all with hungry people behind in line is motivated by greed.

    Unlike you, however, I believe that the statement, “I impose conditions or prices on you unilaterally because I can,” may or may not be motivated by greed. For example, the person described in my blog who was unwilling to sell her car for less than what it was worth was “imposing” a price on a needy person – just because she could. She may be greedy, but that is impossible to tell just by looking at the fact that she was unwilling to give away some of the value of something she owned (by selling the car at a price less than the car’s value). In fact, she might be a person who gives a substantially higher than average percentage of her wealth to charity, i.e., by definition, “not greedy.”

    I do not see how greed has anything to do with whether a person’s transactions are one-on-one or one-on-many. Selling one’s possession at prices less than what the possessions are worth are acts of charity regardless of the number of buyers.

    You say, “Having a lifesaving product that is unique, costs pennies to manufacture, selling it for a thousand dollars so you can pay yourself millions of dollars, that is greed.” Let’s test the general theory underlying this statement. What if, while digging in your backyard, you happen upon an old treasure chest of gold coins? Say that you discover with a little research that the coins are worth thousands of dollars. You decide to dig around to see if there are any more buried coins and find millions of dollars’ worth of coins. Say that the value of your effort was “pennies” per coin. Would you necessarily be greedy if you sold all of the coins for what they were worth? If you believe so, would your assessment of yourself be different if you sold the coins and gave the proceeds to charity? My point is, one cannot assess from afar the level of greed involved based on the facts you presented.
    The scenario you presented is similar to what the new owners of Mylan (the maker of the EpiPen) did. (For simplicity, I’ll refer to Mylan as “EpiPen.”] The EpiPen is an epinephrine autoinjection device that costs “pennies to manufacture.” Prior to the purchase, the company had been selling the devices at a price well below that at which the company’s revenue could be maximized; that is, the former owners were being charitable.

    Why is selling at an unnecessarily low price charitable? The goal of most companies is to maximize the difference between the company’s costs and the company’s revenues (which equals profit). Revenue is the price per unit times the quantity of units sold. A law of economics is that, as a firm raises the unit sales price of a good or service, the company’s revenue will increase and the quantity of units sold will decrease – up to a limit. That limit is reached when the price is so high that raising the price further would result in enough fewer units sold that total revenue would decrease. That peak price is called “the optimal price.” It is just normal business (not excessive/greedy) for companies to try to price their units at the optimal price. If a company intentionally sets a price below the optimal price (and this is not done to promote the company’s business), it is foregoing profits for the benefit of its customers. Giving up or foregoing things that are rightfully yours for the benefit of others is the essence of charity.


    EpiPen has tried to price its product at the optimal price – just like almost all other companies. EpiPen’s pricing is nevertheless evil. This is because there is a big difference between EpiPen and most companies. Unlike most companies, EpiPen is not selling something that rightfully belonged to EpiPen. What EpiPen has done is truly disgusting. I would not object to anyone calling the owners greedy or evil.

    The evil in the EpiPen story is that EpiPen has used its political connections to cause the FDA to effectively grant the company monopoly power over epinephrine autoinjection devices in the U.S. If it were not for the protection and promotion of EpiPen by the FDA, EpiPen would not be able to charge exorbitant prices. Stated differently, if EpiPen operated in a free competitive market (rather than the market it has essentially cornered with the help of the FDA), it would have no ability to charge exorbitant prices.

    The reason EpiPen can charge evil prices is that the FDA has kept EpiPen’s competitors at bay. In Europe, EpiPen competes with at least seven other epinephrine autoinjection devices. As a result, EpiPen sells its devices for much less in Europe. With aid from the FDA, EpiPen currently has only one relatively weak competitor in the U.S. All seven competitors’ devices have been approved by the European drug agencies, while only two of the weakest of the seven competitors has been able to surmount the FDA’s hurdles. One of those competitors was so weak it has gone out of business. This is what gives EpiPen the power to set its prices as high as it does.

    Why is the FDA giving EpiPen monopoly power? Lots of sources have posited defenses for this, including self-defenses by the FDA. All of these are mostly smokescreens for the fact that the CEO of EpiPen is the daughter of Senator Manchin and that there is a lot of money to be made by pulling political strings at the public’s expense.
    The FDA would have you believe that it is blocking competitive devices because they are not safe. Of course, the EpiPen is not perfectly safe for everyone either, but that did not and should not have caused the FDA to block the device. For almost everyone, having an epinephrine autoinjection device when they need it is safer than not having one. “Safe,” however, is a subjective and multivariable term. Consequently, the game can be rigged.

    EpiPen is likely safer than other devices in terms of some variables and less safe in terms of others. In that event, a facilitating FDA would establish criteria based on variables that EpiPen could pass and others that could not. With complete accuracy (and utmost disingenuousness), the FDA could declare EpiPen to be the only safe device. Approving weak competitors with the same approach is always helpful to the cover.
    Even if the EpiPen happened to be safer in terms of every relevant variable, the FDA should not be blocking all competitors when their products are reasonably safe relative to their costs. If another device is 95% as safe as the EpiPen but costs 5% as much, then vastly more people who could not afford an EpiPen would be safer with a device they could afford. Toyota Corollas are not as safe as Mercedes GLE 400s, but it would be wrong to ban Corollas because of that fact.

    Making matters worse, EpiPen is using its political connections to force every school to have EpiPens on hand. The slightly safer or possibly more convenient, but incredibly more expensive, EpiPen monopoly means less money is available for educating students.

    The reason that EpiPen’s story is news is because it is relatively rare that a company which engages directly with the public is politically connected enough to be in a position to engage in such evil. Though many companies benefit similarly from connections to powerful politicians, such companies usually do not sell products directly to consumers. As I said, I’m fine with people calling these people “greedy” and worse.

    In a free market, nothing is wrong with (and there is much good about) people receiving the market value of the goods and services they produce and make available to the public. If doing so makes significant profits for the seller, all the better. (The rationales for the preceding statements will be the subject of future blogs.) For example, no one should begrudge the significant profits that Steve Jobs made. (There will be a blog on that, too.)

    To justly identify and disparage greed is a good thing. To errantly disparage people who invent, develop, produce, and deliver things that people want will reduce the motivation for people to invent, develop, produce, and deliver. Fewer people doing that means higher prices and fewer good things for everyone, so we should be careful.

    I’m not, however, buying your “forced to deal” scenario. If a person believes that the sales price of something is higher than she would prefer to pay, she can choose not to buy it. If she cannot afford to buy the thing she would prefer to buy, that is not an honest seller’s fault. If “society” believes that she should have the wherewithal to buy the thing, then society, not the honest seller, should do something about that. Moreover, if it is a bad thing to “force people to deal” at a price that is higher than they want to pay, then it would be equally bad to force a seller to deal at a price at which they do not want to sell.

Leave a Reply