Greed Through the Ages: How Inequality Became Institutional

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”

This ideal is often mentioned in debates about fairness and equity.

Greed is not new. Ancient scriptures warned about the dangers of avarice. Most societies have seen that unchecked accumulation can damage trust, community, and justice. What is more recent and more dangerous is how greed has become part of our economic and political systems, not just a personal or moral issue.  Some have gone so far as claiming “Greed is Good”.

This is the story of how greed evolved, how it was constrained (sometimes), and how in recent decades it has returned as a dominant force.

Early Warnings and Social Constraints

Long before corporations or stock options, communities recognized that excessive desire often leads to harm.

• Religious and philosophical traditions across the world vilified greed (avarice, desire, hoarding). From the Christian “love of money is a root of all evil,” to Buddhist teachings on attachment, many spiritual traditions saw greed as a central vice.

• Pre-modern economies were more limited in scale. Wealth was often tied to land, grain surpluses, or trade. Custom, moral norms, and local control exerted pressure on how much one could accumulate without provoking social pushback.

Greed in earlier ages was often a matter of personal morality or governance limitation. It was far less systemic than today.

The Industrial Leap: Accumulation on a Grand Scale

With the Industrial Revolution, the scale of wealth creation exploded, and so did the potential for greed.

• Factories, railroads, mines, and mass production concentrated productive capacity and capital.

• Those who owned factories, machines, mines, or transportation amassed enormous influence over labor, resources, and markets.

In the late 19th century, the Gilded Age in the U.S. became a defining era of accumulation and inequality. Industrial titans like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan not only built empires but also shaped politics, legislation, and public discourse. Critics dubbed them “robber barons” for their monopolistic tactics, exploitative labor practices, and political leveraging.

Public discontent grew: the rise of populist movements, labor strikes, and “muckraking” journalism signaled that many saw the concentration of wealth as harmful. Progressive reforms (antitrust, regulatory agencies, labor protections) followed in the early 20th century.

The 20th Century: Regulation, Compression, and Pushback

The 20th century saw a push to temper the excesses born by industrial capitalism.

• During the Great Compression, from the 1930s to the 1970s, many Western countries, especially the U.S., saw income inequality shrink. Worker wages grew faster, social safety nets expanded, taxes on high incomes were steep, and unions were strong.

• Legal, regulatory, and civic reforms helped: antitrust laws, social security, minimum wages, labor protections, regulatory oversight, and public disclosure norms.

In many ways, this was a counter-greed era: the idea that accumulation without shared prosperity was dangerous.

The Revival of Systemic Greed (Late 20th Century to Today)

Starting in the late 1970s, structural shifts began tilting power back toward elites.

The Numbers Tell the Story

• Between 1978 and 2023, CEO compensation (adjusted for inflation) increased 1,085 %, while a typical worker’s compensation grew only 24 %. Economic Policy Institute

• In 2023, CEOs earned 290 times what typical workers did—versus about 21-to-1 in 1965. Economic Policy Institute

• In 2024, S&P 500 CEOs made an average of 285× the pay of their median workers—up from 268× a year before. AFL-CIO+1

• For a dramatic example: Starbucks’ CEO in 2024 made astronomical sums—6,666 times more than their median worker. The Guardian+1

These are not anomalies—they are systemic patterns.

How It Happened

Several forces converged to resurrect greed as a structural feature:

• Executive compensation design. Stock awards, options, bonuses, and performance metrics that reward short-term gains. The “CEO pay slice” (how much more the CEO gets relative to his top leadership team) has grown, and is correlated with lower firm performance. Inequality.org

• Corporate governance capture. Boards often defer to CEOs or compete to match peer pay, pushing upward. CEO influence over compensation committees and weak shareholder oversight make it easier for executives to set their own pay.

• Decline of countervailing power. Labor unions have weakened, collective bargaining has lost power, worker protections have eroded, and political influence has tilted toward capital.

• Regulatory and tax changes also played a role. Tax cuts for top incomes, deregulation, loopholes, and weaker enforcement have made it easier for wealth to accumulate with few limits.

• Normalization over time. When outrageous pay becomes routine, outrage fades. The “outrage constraint” sometimes acts (social backlash limiting extreme pay), but it’s weak in many contexts. Wikipedia

As one recent study bluntly asserts: “CEO greed has been shown to be related to a host of negative outcomes.” Inequality.org

The growth in executive pay is not merely a function of merit or performance. The balance of power, weak accountability, and incentive structures all matter.

Why Greed Matters: Beyond the Numbers

It’s not just a moral argument: greed has real consequences.

• Economic distortion. When returns accrue to capital rather than labor, inequality deepens, consumption falters, and growth becomes less inclusive.

• Corporate performance. High CEO pay relative to their team is correlated with weaker returns, lower productivity, and increased risk. Inequality.org

• Social trust and stability. Perceptions that “the game is rigged” fuel political polarization, cynicism, and social unrest.

• Cultural damage. When greed is normalized, integrity, community, and shared purpose suffer.

  
  

Lessons from History & Paths Forward

History shows that greed does not disappear on its own, but it can be restrained, changed, or challenged. Some possible solutions include:

1. Transparent disclosure and ratio reporting. Require companies to publish CEO-to-median-worker pay ratios, executive pay broken down by component.

2. Binding shareholder votes. Instead of advisory votes, allow shareholders to meaningfully reject executive pay packages.

3. Compensation caps or relative limits. Examples: limiting CEO pay to a multiple of the lowest paid worker (e.g., 50×) or forbidding runaway bonuses.

4. Tax policy leverage. Higher top marginal rates, closing loopholes for stock compensation, and penalizing excessive compensation.

5. Strengthening labor and collective bargaining. Empowering workers, unions, and codetermination (worker representation on boards).

6. Cultural and civic pressure. Media, watchdogs, and public campaigns to shame extreme pay, promote ethical standards, and fairness norms.

   
   

Call to Action: History Is Not Destiny

Greed is never just an individual issue; it is built into institutions. But we do not have to accept it as unchangeable.

• Demand transparency from companies and institutions you support.

• Support regulations, laws, and policies that curb excess and promote fairness

• Use your voice as a consumer, shareholder, or voter.

• Build and patronize organizations that mirror a more balanced approach.

If history teaches us anything, it is that unchecked accumulation leads to instability. But history also shows that people can push back through collective action, moral courage, and structural reforms to create a fairer economic system.  Let’s all pitch in and help rein in greed!