M3-C.Day Job satisfaction

The hardest part of these discussions is how to narrow it down and summarize well!   Here we go…

I have a blend of the two answers.   I had a job that I LOVED, was good at and thought I had found what I should be doing; therefore my attitude was great and worked my butt off for them!   After a few months things soured as did my attitude and I ultimately handed them the key and walked out for my sanity.

Without getting into too much detail, my story goes as such:   I started working at a gift shop two days a week.   After a month, it was a full time position.   After another four months, I was offered manager.   It was not about the pay (only $11/hr.) or the benefits (none!).   The owners treated me well at the time, I worked with two others I enjoyed, and I liked the work.   They weren’t making much money though and had to close or downsize (go from two spaces to one space rental).   they chose to downsize and I was, for the most part, in charge.   I was MADE for this!   The owners were even out of state for all but the very end of the process.   D and her husband, W (who just sat back and watched most things) even offered to sell the store to me and my co-worker if we “did a good job”.   When they got back, D (main owner) began to have issues with how things were getting done.   My co-worker and I were literally moving big heavy displays and when D saw where I chose to put things, she didn’t like it.   She didn’t like that I was sick ONE day during the process.   She didn’t think anything I ordered would sell.   I put too much on markdown sale (some of the merchandise had been included in the store when they bought it almost TWENTY years ago!), as well as marking it down TOO MUCH.   I put things in “odd” places.   In the meantime the co-worker (it was just the two of us for most of this process) had a LOT of drama.   I continually had to cover for her and was affected by her drama.   In a nutshell, I felt awful about myself every time I had to walk through the door.   I WAS rude to a few customers and complained A LOT.

One day D came in as “we needed to talk”, which turned in to her going off on me telling me I need to “tow the line”, how easily I could be replaced, and that my attitude was awful.   She even brought my daughter in to it.   That was the last straw.   I had a couple of days off and talked to others to be sure I wasn’t over reacting, and when I went in again I double-triple counted money, took all my personal items, and got ready to hand them the key.   After this I KNOW they gave me bad references when I was looking for another job (small town after all!).   They made my filing for unemployment awful as possible.   Thankfully they live in a town over so I rarely see either of them now.   The point of all this…even without getting paid well, having no benefits, or even having weekends off I was happy and had a great attitude.   When I was treated badly (you heard the tip of the iceburg here) I had an AWFUL attitude, and it was reflected in the way I treated customers, which was the most important part of my job.

As a side note, I kept it classy and didn’t go around telling everyone how awful they were.   Most people know already, honestly, and they’re getting worse.   I’ve been told multiple times what a great job I was doing, especially with the headache of downsizing.   THAT’S pretty satisfying!

M3 (Korhonen)


The video I’ve attached gives a good overview of the financial crisis of 2008.   The clip goes into detail on what caused the crisis and how the government acted in response to it.

I believe it’s clear that the commentator/producer of the video is libertarian in her beliefs.   She references on more than one occasion that the actions of the government most likely caused the crisis, and did more harm than good when trying to bailout the banks in trouble.   Libertarians believe that government should not interfere with the issues of its citizens, and play more of a ‘hands-off’ role in their lives.



Can it ever be unjust to accumulate wealth?

The video I presented provides information on the utilitarian view. According to our book Mill believed that justice concerns certain rules and rights that are vitally important for human well-being and that the maximization of happiness ultimately determines what is just and unjust. The video illustrates this really well 4:45 in by explaining three core elements of Mill’s Utilitarianism, the information provided also compliments the information in our textbook. When it come to accumulating wealth in can only be seen as unjust if it is done through unjust means such as robbing a bank. This would be taking away from the idea of promoting social well being or happiness. If you approached the above question through the libertarian approach the overall concern for promoting   social well being wouldn’t be held in high regards if any at all. The only restriction for accumulating wealth through the libertarian approach is that one cannot restricts or interfere with anyone else’s liberties. Aside from that one restriction anyone can accumulate as much wealth as they desire without any person, group, or government disturbing you. Nozick’s theory has a similar comparison to being the neutral country of Switzerland in WW2. According to Nozick’s one could accumulate wealth with the limitations being that it would have to be entitled to you earns and have earned them without violating other people’s rights.


What answer would each theory of Justice give to the following questions (we have studied three):

  1. Is it right for the government give a huge bail out to banks to keep them in business?
  2. Can it ever be unjust to accumulate wealth?

First off, I would like to give a brief breakdown of each theory of justice. Utilitarianism is based on the simple notion that producing the greatest amount of happiness for the largest number of people would be most beneficial for everyone. Libertarianism is ran on a different principle of minimal government intervention in all aspects and no regulations. The last theory is Rawls’s Theory of Justice. This theory is based on two principles of liberty.

Under Utilitarianism, a bailout would be considered beneficial to everyone since it keeps the bank open and available for the public. The accumulation of wealth would be deemed unjust because it ties up money from circulating through the market and it promotes income inequality. A Libertarianism view would be quite the opposite. No regulation on wealth accrual and no bailouts to banks. Rawls’s theory is not as easy to pinpoint. Under the first principle of justice, accumulation of wealth would be acceptable as it is that person’s freedom to do so. By the second principle of justice, a bailout may be allowed since it could be beneficial to the least-advantaged.

This is a well put together video by PragerU on a quick history of bailouts and if governments should do them.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/GT1WqIkg9es” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

PragerU also does another great video on income inequality by showing some of the benefits the rich give to society in a free market.

<iframe width=”560″ height=”315″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/1e35Vf-9n8E” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>


Can it ever be unjust to accumulate wealth?

I picked this question because when thinking back to the three theories of justice the one I can agree with the most is, “Rawls’s Theory of Justice”, as Shaw explains, “Rawls suggests instead that we imagine people in the original position choosing solely on the basis of self-interest: Each individual chooses the set of principles for governing society that will be the best for himself or herself,” (Shaw 102). I believe that is not about the way the wealth is accumulated, but about how smart you are on accumulating it. That being said, I don’t agree with theft or scamming others to build success, but I can agree on how you use society to your best interest to make a great life for yourself. Below I have attached a video where Robert Kiyosaki explains the difference between different types of people,  like those that  use external sources to their advantage and success  and others who instead help with the success of the source, benefiting the source instead.

M3 (Juan Sebastian)

Is it right for the government give a huge bail out to banks to keep them in business? I think is not right to do that, why do the banks deserve our money if they make the risk choices and if things wouldn’t work out, they should’ve lost their own money not ours. but like …


I do not believe that the government should bail out big banks. There has been much coverage of the 2008 financial crisis. Almost all of the coverage supports the fact that the mortgage crisis could’ve been easily avoided. The info-graphic above shows the breakdown  of the government’s bailouts. The United States government should not be responsible for bailing out irresponsible banks. They did so in 2008 to limit the damage.

Works Cited
“Wall Street Receives a Trillion Dollar Bailout…then Attacks Puerto Rico.” WAR AGAINST ALL PUERTO RICANS. N.p., 06 Nov. 2016. Web. 08 June 2017. <https://waragainstallpuertoricans.com/2016/04/04/wall-street-receives-a-trillion-dollar-bailoutthen-attacks-puerto-rico/>.
N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2017. <https://publicdebts.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/analogy-of-the-bank-bailout.gif>.

M3 Morley

Can it ever be unjust to accumulate wealth?


I think that this is a good example of those who use spirituality as a moral compass. Eckhart Tolle’s argument is that your attachment should not be to material things. I think it does a great job of showing how spirituality can guide those who chose to. In chapter 1 the example presented was the Bible, but Eckhart Tolle shows spirituality without being affiliated with a religion.


Is it right for the government give a huge bail out to banks to keep them in business?



This video does well at showing how actions have consequences and how one event leads to another. On such a large scale, we the citizens feel the blow not the politicians who represent us.


Jerue-Module 3

Too Big To Fail

The video above is discussing how certain businesses in the United States are “too big to fail” and how the government can justify a bail out or leaving a business in trouble alone.

According the the Utilitarian theory, it is ok for the government to bail out these big companies because it ends up helping the greater good. “the maximization of happiness ultimately determines what is just and unjust”(Shaw,87). Therefore, if the larger companies are bailed out, and the economy is still above water, then the greater good is happy.

The Libertarian theory is quite opposite; “justice consists in permitting each person to live as he or she pleases, free from the interference of others.”(Shaw,90). The video explains that these bail outs could be considered an unnecessary risks. According to this theory the interference would cause more harm than good and should be avoided.

Lastly is Rawls theory, which is described in two principles. First, that everyone has the right to basic liberties and freedom. Second, that if there happen to be some inequalities, that they be ones that bring the most benefit to the greater good. In the video, they describe how the government may weigh the cost of a bail out versus the cost of the company failing. In some instances, if a larger company fails, then there are smaller businesses affected, which then affects the employees of said companies.

M3 (Garcia)

Is it right for the government to give a huge bailout to banks to keep them in business? NO! Can it ever be unjust to accumulate wealth? YES! These are some examples of the injustices involving bailouts and wealth accumulation: -Corporations not paying their fair share of taxes -Loose bankruptcy laws for large corporations leave …

Module 3 (Hamm)

This video by Nicole Gelinas, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute does a pretty good job of answering the question of the government bailing out banks. However, it only lays the groundwork for differentiating between how the three theories of justice would answer the question. As the video points out, the government had a history of being around to help when big banks needed it. According to the utilitarian theory of justice, “Utilitarians favor whichever economic system will bring the most good for society as a whole’ (Shaw 88). Obviously an economic system where the government protects the banks seems pretty foolproof. On the other hand, the government didn’t step in when Lehman Brothers needed them the most. The Libertarian approach would suggest that this was appropriate: “we refrain from interfering with others. Beyond this, we are not obliged to do anything positive for anyone else, nor is anyone required to do anything positive for us’ (Shaw 91). Lastly, there is Rawl’s theory of justice. The video points out that President Bush was the one to sign a bill affecting the bailout into law. The president thought it was right for the government to bail out the banks. Even in an opposing political stance, he was able “to be objective and impartial’ which “makes agreement possible’ (Shaw 99). All three theories of justice have differing viewpoints regarding the question of the government bailing out the banks. The fact of the matter is, the government has helped bail out banks, and banks are still in business. Whether it is right for the government to give a huge bailout depends on which of the theories of justice explained above you subscribe to. The good news is that regardless of whether the situation was right or wrong it could have gotten much worse, but didn’t.