Analysis: Steve Jobs

Now, Socialists on the other hand may have a lot to say about Steve Jobs holding on to all of his wealth. The classic socialist would be the first to say that Jobs’ wealth should be distributed back into Apple’s business rather than his bank account. Since Steve could have been viewed as Apple’s chosen leader (CEO) but the company would still be ran ultimately by the employees there. Although he will still be the leader of Apple, socialists will say that his salary will be proportionate to his inputs for the company. While Apple continues to mass-produce these products the citizens want, in a planned social economy, the government will overall decide how much these products are worth in recognition to their demand. This will all lead back to …show more content…
Rawls believes in fairness and that people like Jobs would be hindered by a something called a “veil of ignorance”. He says that, “no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like.” This veil can help the rational man make fair decisions based on Rawls’ two principles of justice: maximize liberty and minimize inequalities. However, the two principles cannot be violated for the sake of the other. In his “original position”, Rawls’ states that members of the society have equal rights, and that social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are to benefit the least advantaged, and are attached to the offices and positions fairly open to all that are qualified - also known as the difference principle. With that being said, I can assume that Rawls’ will agree with Jobs’ on the fact that he should be rewarded for his hard work and determination. Although Steve made millions from his products, his ideas have helped shaped the world into what it is now. Also, as previously stated, Jobs redistributed much of his money to charities and people who were less off than him. Though, Rawls would most likely say that the redistribution of wealth needs to primarily pertain to that society only, not a foreign one. In Rawls’ Theory of Justice, we all have equal and fair opportunity to run for a position, which Jobs did. He not only went up against all his other internal competitors, but also his external competitors like Microsoft. Rawls may even say Jobs has maximized the freedoms of phones and computers today, while still allowing for the opportunity of growth in the business. While it can be argued that Jobs’ technological advancements have come as a disadvantage to other companies who lag behind, Rawls’ may say that it can maximize