Politics of uneven wealth distribution, page-180

i dont think the article tells a complete story. some things need to be considered.

1. what is there nett wealth? i.e. debt load.
2. i would look at the employees as part of the family as they benefit through jobs, then have a look at the figures, at the end of the day someone must hold the shares.
3. if an employee bought shares 30 years ago and still worked for mars as example, what would there wealth look like now? this gives a better indicator as to how the capitalist system is working. same as people who bought a house 30 years ago versus someone who rented.
4. whats the average wage of that companies employees. this is where amazon prob doesnt fare well, however if they bought shares, even a little amount if they had spare cash its a different story.
5. how long was the wealth accumalted over, what % of company does family own, this is where critics of anazon hit a difficult patch , he took a risk in the dot com era and won, millions went broke, how would a socialist regime handle this scenario? my guess is that there would be no amazon.
6. wage eqaulity is in my view not a result of big greedy companies, as its hard to say now we should raise the minimum wage, then small businesses struggle or lay pepple off and big business gets bigger.
7. does a mire even wealth distribution system means everyone has more money? what if unemployment goes to 10%, the poor ir less intelligent still poor, smart still make money.

i dont think capitalism has anytging to do with it, i think its govt policy over 50 year periods is a better view point fir discussion.

people who blame trump for the usa system or where they are now have zero economic or data analysis skills in my opinion, hes been there for 2 years, obama, bush and clintons had 24 years combined.

need to look at these things from the air not one glance at ground level, otherwuse your chasing your tail.

Ant...