Take the issue to its extreme - suppose you are wealthy, and the society you live in is very poor.

Hi again, briandmyers. I regret that our discussion earlier didn't lead in constructive directions, and I thought this thought experiment very interesting. I will respond to it honestly, and I would be interested to see how you would respond as well.

First of all, I would be extremely uncomfortable in this situation. It makes me quite uncomfortable to walk past one very poor person on the sidewalk, while I and hundreds of people around me enjoy fresh coffee, wear clean clothes and play with our smartphones. To be surrounded by poverty-induced misery on all sides would make me miserable, if not suicidal.

You can pay people next to nothing, and they will work themselves to death for that pittance

But at least there is some hope. I have some wealth. It is obvious to me that the only possible comfort to be had in this situation would come from trying to elevate as many of my neighbors as possible from their wretched states. I could divide up my wealth equally among everyone and distribute it, that would be fair and it would help some. But I am too selfish to completely impoverish myself in order to provide a small benefit to many people (I must admit this as long as I, in the real world, have plenty to eat and a comfortable home while people elsewhere starve).

So your suggestion of starting some kind of business and offering people jobs is appealing. Specialization of labor and voluntary exchange have been a powerful force in generating wealth around the world. Let's assume I can figure out some business that can be successful in this environment. Probably I can't offer jobs to everyone around, not at the beginning anyway. Even if I could, probably some people won't have skills that contribute to the business, or there will be more unskilled people than I can usefully employ.

So I have to choose: do I use my limited budget to employ a smaller number of people at a higher wage, thereby improving a smaller number of people to a greater extent? Or do I employ a larger number of people at a lower wage, thereby spreading the wealth more widely but with less individual effect? It is not obvious to me that one is clearly better than the other, so I think it might be justifiable to aim for a workforce size and corresponding salary that is best for the business and therefore best for everyone since this business is the best hope we have of pulling people out of poverty.

What would you do?