Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-20-2019 8:11 PM
160 online now:
dwise1, Meddle, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Theodoric (5 members, 155 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Upcoming Birthdays: CosmicChimp
Post Volume:
Total: 847,739 Year: 2,776/19,786 Month: 858/1,918 Week: 145/301 Day: 28/35 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 135 (746762)
01-09-2015 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
01-09-2015 1:31 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
So it "adds more to the bottom line" by a metric that "isn't really measured all that much."

Fascinating.

That's right.

So the real value of the worker's contribution to the bottom line is just an uninformed guess.

No, its an informed estimation.

Could you take the CEO and put him on the line and have him show how is salary is justified by his ability to produce ... at a rate proportional to his salary?

Wouldn't that be a metric that you could compare workers to and arrive at a system of valuing the work based on the time it frees up for the CEO to do other tasks?

That's retarded. The CEO's pay isn't determined by how fast he can operate the production lines. He hardly even goes out into the plant.

He makes business decisions and procures new business opportunities.

Of course it isn't. Take that person away and the job is not done.

One call to the temp service and we've got a busload of new eager workers.

So the second worker would need training to do the first worker job and then would be able to do it.

Not necessarily. For example, one position requires you to pass a basic math test, like arithmetic. People have applied for the job internally but failed that test.

If you can't do arithmetic then you can't do the job. Some people cannot do arithmetic.

Or my job, it requires a fairly high-level understanding of chemistry. You can't just "train" people for that. You need a whole education.

So you have a position of privilege and feel entitled to waste company time justifying it.

Like I said, I foresaw what corporate america was about. I went to college and got a degree so I could be "privileged" and "entitled".

You could take the gross profits from production, sales - costs, and divide by number of people and the company would still make a profit and pay people.

Could, but don't want to.

That's the myth of corporate work -- that you are being paid well for your actual value because somebody else is being paid less.

I consider myself being paid well, not because somebody is being paid less, but because I can easily afford a comfortable lifestyle.

But I'm not extravagant or lavish, I drive an old car and have an old house. I'm happy with that.

And you measure your success based on other people making less,

No, I don't.

rather than on what your real value is.

I'm working for somebody else. If they paid me what my real value was then they wouldn't be making any money off me. I realize this is a for-profit business and not a charity.

When a CEO takes 400 times what the line worker makes and you make twice as much as the line worker, the difference between you and the line worker is insignificant.

Tell that to the line worker.

Because they are undervalued and underpaid,

They're really not that valuable. Many of the jobs could be performed by robots.

But the robots are a little too valuable.

The white collar slave looking down on the blue collar slaves. As long as you don't look up you won't see how far down you are.

I don't care how far down I am.

I'm high enough to be comfortable, and that's good enough for me.

Was it a share in the company stock? Or was it less than a week of your salary? What was it in terms of the annual net profits? the Owner's salary?

We're privately owned. It was more than a week of my salary but less than two weeks.

Our owner is the CEO and president of the company. He started this business himself. He used to get up early, operate the lines and make the products, go and shower up, put on a suit, and then hit the streets and try to sell them.

He was successful. Then he hired people to do the work so he wouldn't have to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 1:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 32 of 135 (746775)
01-09-2015 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 2:54 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
No, its an informed estimation.

Informed by arbitrary valuation.

That's retarded. The CEO's pay isn't determined by how fast he can operate the production lines. He hardly even goes out into the plant.

But you say that worker 1 should earn more than worker 2 if he produces more.

It follows then that if someone earns more that they should be better workers ... or they use some other metric to justify to you and others that they are stealing value from the workers.

He makes business decisions and procures new business opportunities.

And there it is ...

So did he interview for the job and was he approved by the company with salary set by the workers for the value they perceive he contributes?

In a just system it is a two-way street. A one-way street is inherently unjust.

One call to the temp service and we've got a busload of new eager workers.

If the worker is sick and goes on sick leave you are paying two people for one job.

A busload that need to be trained and brought up to speed. Again I assume you are a non-union shop.

When you are training someone you are paying two people to do one job, often slowely ...

Curiously when you look at companies that pay living wages instead of minimum wages they thrive as well if not better than the minimum wage ones ... and one of the reasons is the workers are more committed to getting to work, and one of the reasons is that the companies don't need to train new workers and get them up to speed. Reducing turnover improves the bottom line ... by valuing the workers more.

Not necessarily. For example, one position requires you to pass a basic math test, like arithmetic. People have applied for the job internally but failed that test.

If you can't do arithmetic then you can't do the job. Some people cannot do arithmetic.

Or my job, it requires a fairly high-level understanding of chemistry. You can't just "train" people for that. You need a whole education.

So you agree that an educated population would provide better workers.

Like I said, I foresaw what corporate america was about. I went to college and got a degree so I could be "privileged" and "entitled".

And feel superior to people working minimum wage on the production lines and thankful for the trickle down manna from the boss?

I consider myself being paid well, not because somebody is being paid less, but because I can easily afford a comfortable lifestyle.

But I'm not extravagant or lavish, I drive an old car and have an old house. I'm happy with that.

So having a steady guaranteed income that provides a comfortable lifestyle of living ...

... would allow you to pursue avenues of interest to you rather than having to go to a white collar slave job with no paid overtime ...

Curiously I have three degrees that I earned to learn, not because some fabulous paying job awaited.

I'm working for somebody else. If they paid me what my real value was then they wouldn't be making any money off me. I realize this is a for-profit business and not a charity.

Being paid full value for your work is not charity, it is respect and it is justice. If they can't afford that then should they be in business?

And you measure your success based on other people making less,

No, I don't.

When a CEO takes 400 times what the line worker makes and you make twice as much as the line worker, the difference between you and the line worker is insignificant.

Tell that to the line worker.

The white collar slave looking down on the blue collar slaves. As long as you don't look up you won't see how far down you are.

I don't care how far down I am.

I'm high enough to be comfortable, and that's good enough for me.

Because they are undervalued and underpaid,

They're really not that valuable. Many of the jobs could be performed by robots.

But the robots are a little too valuable.

And you measure your success based on other people making less,

No, I don't.

Fascinating.

Was it a share in the company stock? Or was it less than a week of your salary? What was it in terms of the annual net profits? the Owner's salary?

We're privately owned. It was more than a week of my salary but less than two weeks.

So not that much, just enough to keep you shackled.

Our owner is the CEO and president of the company. He started this business himself. He used to get up early, operate the lines and make the products, go and shower up, put on a suit, and then hit the streets and try to sell them.

That's retarded. The CEO's pay isn't determined by how fast he can operate the production lines. He hardly even goes out into the plant.

So he does know what it takes to run the line, he just doesn't think that other people doing it provide the same value?

He was successful. Then he hired people to do the work so he wouldn't have to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

And pay them less than he paid himself for the same work? The work other do allows him free time to do other tasks -- isn't that just as valuable as his time doing those other tasks?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : cleanup


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2015 12:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16142
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 33 of 135 (746845)
01-10-2015 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:53 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Cat's Eye writes:

ringo writes:

So it's arbitrary.


Not at all.

Why not?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2015 12:48 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 135 (746880)
01-10-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
01-09-2015 4:32 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
Informed by arbitrary valuation.

No, its a very particular valuation: How much profit you're providing the company.

But you say that worker 1 should earn more than worker 2 if he produces more.

Because they're adding more to the bottom line.

The CEO adds more to the bottom line in a different way.

So did he interview for the job and was he approved by the company with salary set by the workers for the value they perceive he contributes?

He created the company and gave himself the job. They're weren't any workers at the time.

In a just system it is a two-way street. A one-way street is inherently unjust.

The company wasn't set up to make justice, it was set up to make a profit.

If the worker is sick and goes on sick leave you are paying two people for one job.

They get sick time and vacation time. (And a 401k)

But there's always extra people in the plant. You gotta have a little fluff.

Curiously when you look at companies that pay living wages instead of minimum wages they thrive as well if not better than the minimum wage ones ...

We don't pay minimum wage. You get really shitty workers if the pay is that low.

And feel superior to people working minimum wage on the production lines and thankful for the trickle down manna from the boss?

I don't feel superior. Its interesting that you have to impart emotional states onto me in order to make a point.

So having a steady guaranteed income that provides a comfortable lifestyle of living ...

I'd much rather earn it myself than have it handed to me for free from the government.

... would allow you to pursue avenues of interest to you rather than having to go to a white collar slave job with no paid overtime ...

But I don't have to. And it can't be a slave job if I'm free to leave.

A slavery system would be one that you are not allowed to opt-out of. You're in it by force. Like your 50's one.

And really, how much slaving away can I be doing if I'm posting here?

Being paid full value for your work is not charity, it is respect and it is justice.

And terrible business sense. You can't make a profit off the workers that way.

The value I add is waaay more than I'm being paid for. I understand that. I agree to that. The company has to make a profit.

It takes little effort for me to add this value to the company. What they pay me is worth it to me to do it.

What they pay me is worth it to them to have the value I'm adding, even if I post here during my down time.

If you're gonna pay me more for less effort, I might take the job. If I have to put in more effort for more pay, I might not.

There's a balance between how hard I want to work, and how much money I want to make.

My job works. I'm happy to have it. I enjoy the work I do.

If they can't afford that then should they be in business?

What do you mean should?

Anybody can start a business. If it can succeed (legally) then so be it.

Fascinating.

Uh, you're welcome, I guess.

I'm not seeing it, or maybe you're just easily amused.

So not that much, just enough to keep you shackled.

I'm not shackled because I can quit whenever I want.

And whatever "shackles" I'm wearing, I put on myself. I agreed to take this position when it was offered to me. There was no force at all and I was allowed to opt-out.

So he does know what it takes to run the line, he just doesn't think that other people doing it provide the same value?

No, you just want the company to make a profit off any additional workers. That's why the company is in business; to make a profit.

So if a decision does not lead to the company making a profit, like paying a worker the same amount that he brings in, then you don't make that decision.

And pay them less than he paid himself for the same work?

Of course.

If you got a sales call to make, you can hire somebody to run the production while you're gone. If you pay them the exact same amount of value that they are adding, then you might as well not hire them and let the production wait until you get back.

But if you pay them less than the value they add, the company makes a profit off them and the only decision that makes sense to make is to hire them. Now you're definately creating that new job instead of not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 4:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2015 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 57 by xongsmith, posted 12-01-2017 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 135 (746881)
01-10-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
01-10-2015 10:42 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Because its based on something rather than nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 01-10-2015 10:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 01-11-2015 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16142
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 36 of 135 (747004)
01-11-2015 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2015 12:48 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Cat's Eye writes:

Because its based on something rather than nothing.


But you said that that "something" is too complicated to calculate. Granted that something is more than nothing but any particular something - such as the actual dollars-and-cents amount on your paycheck - is chosen more-or-less arbitrarily, because your actual contribution is too complicated to calculate.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2015 12:48 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 37 of 135 (747009)
01-11-2015 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2015 12:46 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
No, its a very particular valuation: How much profit you're providing the company.

Except that you can't tell me what that is, and you've already said it is arbitrary ...

Because they're adding more to the bottom line.

When the sales of the company fluctuate with market does that affect the pay rates?

The CEO adds more to the bottom line in a different way.

So you say but don't say how.

He created the company and gave himself the job. They're weren't any workers at the time.

You're not getting the point. He didn't pay himself a different rate when he was doing the different tasks: worker, janitor, secretary, boss, were all paid the same rate at that time.

The company wasn't set up to make justice, it was set up to make a profit.

Yet it made a profit when he was the sole worker and paid all the different work tasks the same amount per hour.

When he started paying people a lesser rate he was taking value from those people ...

They get sick time and vacation time. (And a 401k)
We don't pay minimum wage. You get really shitty workers if the pay is that low.

So you agree that paying more has benefits in getting and keeping better workers.

I don't feel superior. Its interesting that you have to impart emotional states onto me in order to make a point.
But there's always extra people in the plant. You gotta have a little fluff.
And terrible business sense. You can't make a profit off the workers that way.

Actually I just listen to how you talk about them. Words have nuances.

I'd much rather earn it myself than have it handed to me for free from the government.

Meanwhile taking all the government provided services, socio-economic system and the benefits you owe to union workers (sick leave, healthcare, vacation time, holiday time, pension\401k plans, safe working conditions, etc etc) now covered by government policies ...

Better start building your own road if you don't want government assistance ...

But I don't have to. And it can't be a slave job if I'm free to leave.

A slavery system would be one that you are not allowed to opt-out of. You're in it by force. Like your 50's one.

And really, how much slaving away can I be doing if I'm posting here?

The white collar slave is like the frog in the pot of water, they'll keep sitting their in apparent bliss while the water is heated to a boil. Given crumbs ...

And terrible business sense. You can't make a profit off the workers that way.

The value I add is waaay more than I'm being paid for. I understand that. I agree to that. The company has to make a profit.

There is none so blind as the willing blind.

If the profit were cut in half it would still be a profitable company and the amount you are under-compensated for the value you add could be halved. Then repeat the process -- the company is still profitable ...

The profit ends up in someone's pocket. What you are apparently missing is that the paradigm for sharing the profit based on contribution is not equitable.

So your "contribution" to the bottom line is the value you provide AND the value you willingly give away to the one's who take more profit than the value they contribute.

It takes little effort for me to add this value to the company. What they pay me is worth it to me to do it.

What they pay me is worth it to them to have the value I'm adding, even if I post here during my down time.

If you're gonna pay me more for less effort, I might take the job. If I have to put in more effort for more pay, I might not.

There's a balance between how hard I want to work, and how much money I want to make.

So you like being a lazy slacker that steals time from your employer ... is that any different than a person on unemployment or welfare getting paid for not working?

What do you mean should?

Anybody can start a business. If it can succeed (legally) then so be it.

If the only way a company can make it is to take value from other people then they aren't really being net producers, they are takers.

I'm not seeing it, or maybe you're just easily amused.

At contradictions you make, yes.

I'm not shackled because I can quit whenever I want.

And whatever "shackles" I'm wearing, I put on myself. I agreed to take this position when it was offered to me. There was no force at all and I was allowed to opt-out.

Another illusion -- unless you have actual job offers that pay the same or more for the same work, which I highly doubt.

No, you just want the company to make a profit off any additional workers. That's why the company is in business; to make a profit.

So if a decision does not lead to the company making a profit, like paying a worker the same amount that he brings in, then you don't make that decision.

I guess you don't know what synergy and valued added mean.

If you got a sales call to make, you can hire somebody to run the production while you're gone. If you pay them the exact same amount of value that they are adding, then you might as well not hire them and let the production wait until you get back.

And incur start-up and shut-down costs and mess up scheduling of product out and materials in, costs you don't incur if you maintain production at a steady pace.

But if you pay them less than the value they add, the company makes a profit off them ...

Glad you admit that value theft is part of your model of functioning capitalism.

No, the company makes a profit AND it steals some of the value from the worker to increase the appearance of profits.

If everybody was paid the same $/hr worked you can still have sales less costs show a profit ... the only difference is how you divide the pie, is it democratically shared or is it by feudal edict?

... and the only decision that makes sense to make is to hire them. ...

If you are a greedy taker.

... Now you're definately creating that new job instead of not.

No, that's only creating a handicapped kind of a job, a job at a depressed value, a Burgerking\Wallmart kind of job. A take it if you have nothing else kind of job.

You know how shake-downs and protection rackets work right?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2015 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 11:01 AM RAZD has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(2)
Message 38 of 135 (747077)
01-12-2015 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taq
01-09-2015 1:43 PM


Rentier Vs Entrepreneurial
I agree that no economic or social system is perfect. I agree that some level of “injustice” or “unfairness” is always going to be present in any capitalist economy (or indeed any economic system) and that, to some extent, this just needs to be accepted. And I agree that some form of capitalism is the least worst option for a wealth generating economy yet devised and successfully applied in any sort of practical sense. However in this thread I am NOT talking about capitalism Vs something-else. In this thread I am talking about different forms of capitalism (“Good Capitalism Vs Bad Capitalism” being the thread title here)

Capitalism comes in many forms. The Nordic model of social democratic capitalism is not the same as the Chicago school of free-market fundamentalist capitalism. Capitalism as practised by the US and UK arguably lie somewhere between those two.

With regard to executive pay – The main problem I have with the current situation is that it is symptomatic of the move to an increasingly ‘corporatist’ and plutocratic form of capitalism. Currently in the UK we have a situation where millions of workers are paid so little that they cannot function in society without public assistance (“welfare” in the form of rent payments and income top-ups) whilst shareholders, executives and landlords receive an ever increasing portion of the wealth being generated. I would suggest that this public subsidy of private profit on the back of low wages is not only “unjust” but ultimately unsustainable. A symptom of an increasingly ‘rentier’ economy where the acquisition of wealth is linked to the existing ownership of wealth and decreasingly linked to the sort of risk, innovation and entrepreneurism that are the hallmarks of ‘good capitalism’.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 01-09-2015 1:43 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 135 (747086)
01-12-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
01-11-2015 2:08 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
When he started paying people a lesser rate he was taking value from those people ...

You take value from those people and turn it into a profit for the company.

The white collar slave is like the frog in the pot of water, they'll keep sitting their in apparent bliss while the water is heated to a boil. Given crumbs ...

Meh, I'm happy.

What you are apparently missing is that the paradigm for sharing the profit based on contribution is not equitable.

I'm not missing it, I accept it.

So your "contribution" to the bottom line is the value you provide AND the value you willingly give away to the one's who take more profit than the value they contribute.

I have no problem with the company making a profit off of me. That's why I'm here.

So you like being a lazy slacker that steals time from your employer ...

You're a real piece of work.

If I do the work, I'm a blind slave. If I don't do the work, I'm stealing from the company.

Talk about facinating contradictions.

And really, this is all you have: A bunch of emotive insults.

I get that you don't like it. But I'm fine with it. I chose my path and I'm aware of it and I accept it.

But somehow I'm a blind slave anyways. I see what I'm involved in, and I have the freedom to leave whenever I want. But I'm still a blind slave.

Unless I don't work really hard: Then I'm a thief.

When all you have is emotion and insults, its no wonder that people don't take your ideas seriously.

is that any different than a person on unemployment or welfare getting paid for not working?

Well I do pay income tax.

If the only way a company can make it is to take value from other people then they aren't really being net producers, they are takers.

Except we product more than we take.

Another illusion -- unless you have actual job offers that pay the same or more for the same work, which I highly doubt.

Shows what you know.

I guess you don't know what synergy and valued added mean.

They add value. Value that you say to give to the worker.

And incur start-up and shut-down costs and mess up scheduling of product out and materials in, costs you don't incur if you maintain production at a steady pace.

Again, added value that you say should go to the worker.

So we're in the same place: If all of this added value just goes to the worker, then the company might as well just not do them.

If everybody was paid the same $/hr worked you can still have sales less costs show a profit ... the only difference is how you divide the pie, is it democratically shared or is it by feudal edict?

Privately owned for-profit companies are not democracies... like, at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2015 2:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 12:49 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3698
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001


(3)
Message 40 of 135 (824516)
11-29-2017 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus
01-09-2015 12:47 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Gilded Ages are not times of human flourishing
https://freethoughtblogs.com/...t-times-of-human-flourishing

quote:
quote:

One of the best soundbites I’ve heard about modern economics is (paraphrased)) “It’s not possible to earn a billion dollars. It is possible to steal a billion dollars.”

There is nobody smart enough, hardworking enough, trained enough and dedicated enough to earn a billion dollars without leveraging corrupt systems and exploiting people.

The poverty threshold in America is $11,490 for one person. If someone has a billion dollars, that is 87,032 times the poverty line.

It’s possible for someone to be twice as smart as another worker. It’s possible for them to be four or five times as hardworking. It’s possible for one person to have ten times the training of another person. So if you have one person that is half as smart, a fifth as hardworking, and a tenth as trained, they should reasonably earn one percent of the other. That’s the very outside figure. But anyone who takes in more than a million dollars per year did not earn that, they stole it. They found a vulnerable system to exploit or they found a group of people to cheat. Maybe they did it legally. Maybe they paid someone to make it legal to do that. It happens. But “earn”? Actually -deserving- that much money because of their merits and efforts? No.



Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-09-2015 12:47 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2017 11:16 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2017 2:49 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 135 (824588)
11-30-2017 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Minnemooseus
11-29-2017 9:01 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
But anyone who takes in more than a million dollars per year did not earn that, they stole it.

I think I understand the sentiment, but perhaps this sentence is a bit over the top. Last year, Cristiano Ronaldo earned 59 million dollars playing soccer. In what sense did he steal that money?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-29-2017 9:01 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 12:06 AM NoNukes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 42 of 135 (824590)
12-01-2017 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
11-30-2017 11:16 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
I think I understand the sentiment, but perhaps this sentence is a bit over the top. Last year, Cristiano Ronaldo earned 59 million dollars playing soccer. In what sense did he steal that money?

quote:
... They found a vulnerable system to exploit or they found a group of people to cheat. ...

Looks like he found a vulnerable system to exploit, like all professional athletes, and was happy to do so.

Is he really worth that?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2017 11:16 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 12:30 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 61 by Taq, posted 12-01-2017 4:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 135 (824591)
12-01-2017 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
12-01-2017 12:06 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Is he really worth that?

I am not challenging that part. But to call a man a thief? I cannot call a man that unless he did something he should not have done.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 12:06 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 12:50 AM NoNukes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 44 of 135 (824592)
12-01-2017 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by New Cat's Eye
01-12-2015 11:01 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
... So we're in the same place: If all of this added value just goes to the worker, then the company might as well just not do them.

Not all of it, just a fair share, as the people really adding value are the workers -- without them you have nothing.

If everybody was paid the same $/hr worked you can still have sales less costs show a profit ... the only difference is how you divide the pie, is it democratically shared or is it by feudal edict?

Privately owned for-profit companies are not democracies... like, at all.

So you like being a serf. Fascinating. Or maybe you fancy yourself as a Duke ...

Not surprisingly the American Colonists, the French peasants, the Russian serfs, and others have overthrown such ruling\control structures ... some instigated democratic governments, some just installed a new ruling\control structure.

Also not surprisingly there are many cooperative corporations that are run democratically and the worst paid workers make significantly more than workers doing similar work for totalitarian companies, like Walmart.

They are also successful, but in addition the workers are happy.

You take value from those people and turn it into a profit for the company.

The workers make the value, not the company. When it goes into someone's pocket it isn't profit.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-12-2015 11:01 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-01-2017 12:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19732
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 45 of 135 (824593)
12-01-2017 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by NoNukes
12-01-2017 12:30 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
... But to call a man a thief? I cannot call a man that unless he did something he should not have done.

So the question is whether an exploiter is a thief or not?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 12:30 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 12-01-2017 1:24 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12
3
456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019