Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The example of Scrooge McDuck will be a poor one. Great numbers among the wealthy are driven by a desire to give something back to the community and society that made their success possible to begin with. The piler-uppers are a distinct though annoying minority.
It seems to me that human nature is essentially universal, independent of social-standing, attainment of success, or talent in our various pursuits. Of course, some people work more assiduously at their craft, becoming venerable experts, while others are content with mediocrity. Some revel in the taking of risk, while others shun it. Differences abound, in how we go about living our lives.
But in terms of fear and greed, maximizing one’s own success, worrying about a rapacious or corrupt authority, are we not mostly all alike? Rich and poor alike, are hoping for security and relief from burden. It’s the nature of the security and the burden that differ. Rich and poor alike, want to claim credit for the good things that they’ve attained, while blaming others for failures and setbacks. The rich might have better organizational-skills than the poor. They might be smarter, more adroit, more enterprising. But is their character morally superior?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911
Prior to the 1970's or so, the US had notions and standards about wages that were much more in line with European notions and standards. People like authors, CEO's, actors, and athletes were paid according to established and traditional industry standards that effectively tied their compensation to standards in effect in more ordinary parts of the economy.
Then the idea arose that these people were actually individualized assets who should be paid at competitive market-based rates. All connection to the worth and wages of the common man was simply lost here in the ensuing years.
Indeed. That speaks to my earlier point, that modern first-world inequality (especially in the US) is less about poor-middle-rich, than between the merely affluent and the extremely wealthy. It stands to reason, that a senior manager should earn more than a junior one, and that the CEO should do better than others on the management team. But what we’ve seen is extreme stratification at the very top, between the leaders and the super-leaders. We’ve turned professional work into a tournament, where it already takes prodigious level of qualification just to enter the tournament, but only the winner or perhaps the runner-up is rewarded.
One could also make the argument, that in CEO salaries, just as in the healthcare industry, there really is no functional free-market, because there are built-in barriers and bottlenecks of information. So what we’re seeing is not the free-market rewarding CEOs according to rates that the market would bear, but rather, the rewards stem from artificial constraints.
Then there’s the distinction to be made between owner/founders and employee-CEOs. Thomas Edison might be termed the owner/founder of what became GE (though JP Morgan played a crucial role), but Jack Welch or Jeffery Immelt are hired employees. Even if we stipulate that the spoils ought to go to the winner – that is, the founder – why are they also going to what amounts to just another employee, albeit a senior one?
The rich might have better organizational-skills than the poor. They might be smarter, more adroit, more enterprising. But is their character morally superior?
They tend to be clever, charming, good communicators and manipulators. Regardless of other aspects of their character, the "self made" mega rich must be driven to acquire power and wealth. And the willingness to do whatever it takes. Cheating, bribing, lobbying, etc.
Most people are pretty content with doing their best job and being reasonably compensated. Most developed countries are organized this way, with only modest rewards for those who are more "ambitious".
The rich might have better organizational-skills than the poor. They might be smarter, more adroit, more enterprising. But is their character morally superior?
There isn't really a moral aspect to it. The wealthy merely have a tendency to want to give back, recognizing that their success was hardly of their own exclusive doing. Think Academy Award acceptance speech.
Meanwhile, the compensation warp that roughly began in the 1970's resulted from a systemic change in how the value of talent was estimated across many worlds. The functions and indeed the accomplishments of that talent did not change. Just the levels of their compensation.
I've been at my job for over two years without a wage increase. Rent already consumes half my income.
and instead of wasting all this time on CD you probably could have taught yourself something to earn yourself higher wages.
You joined early 2011. I joined early 2012.
You have 30,000 posts. I have 3,000 posts.
2012: I probably was earning $12-$13/hr.
2017: This week Im interviewing for someone to clean my house and help with paperwork, at this point Im probably pay more in late fees for forgetting to get to paperwork than hiring someone will cost to do the paperwork.
Guess what all that time not on CD was spent doing? Learning.
Multiple people over the years have offered you advice and it's gone unheeded. While you suffer the typical low income problems, you've refused to do a thing about it. Therefore, your ills are solely your responsibility at this point. I decided my time was worth more and made it so, college isn't necessary.
So yeah... the fact you haven't gotten a raise in two years isn't my problem, it's yours. If rent can be increased that is great for the landlord. Guess they made a good decision to purchase that building. What good decisions have you made lately?
There isn't really a moral aspect to it. The wealthy merely have a tendency to want to give back, recognizing that their success was hardly of their own exclusive doing. Think Academy Award acceptance speech.
Where on earth do you get these naive fairy tale notions? Wealth and power do not flow to those with a "desire to give back", but rather those who will do whatever it takes to obtain it. Power and control.
Academy Award winners are celebrities! Humility and thanking others when they win an award is part of the show. Do you really believe they are representative of the oligarchy?
Quote:
Meanwhile, the compensation warp that roughly began in the 1970's resulted from a systemic change in how the value of talent was estimated across many worlds. The functions and indeed the accomplishments of that talent did not change. Just the levels of their compensation.
All the gains went to the mega rich, exclusively. You have to get above the 99%ile before you even match the per capita GDP increase (~100%). Gains ramp up quickly from there, to about 1,000% at the 99.99%ile level.
Like I've told you many times, it isn't hard to see how the wealthy have used national policy, globalization, and finance to make this happen. They didn't do it earlier because they were constrained by consumer-capitalism, and more important agendas (communism).
and instead of wasting all this time on CD you probably could have taught yourself something to earn yourself higher wages.
You joined early 2011. I joined early 2012.
You have 30,000 posts. I have 3,000 posts.
2012: I probably was earning $12-$13/hr.
2017: This week Im interviewing for someone to clean my house and help with paperwork, at this point Im probably pay more in late fees for forgetting to get to paperwork than hiring someone will cost to do the paperwork.
Guess what all that time not on CD was spent doing? Learning.
Multiple people over the years have offered you advice and it's gone unheeded. While you suffer the typical low income problems, you've refused to do a thing about it. Therefore, your ills are solely your responsibility at this point. I decided my time was worth more and made it so, college isn't necessary.
So yeah... the fact you haven't gotten a raise in two years isn't my problem, it's yours. If rent can be increased that is great for the landlord. Guess they made a good decision to purchase that building. What good decisions have you made lately?
Hmmm, envy and cluelessness delicately entwined in the same, short post. Meanwhile, even wikipedia notes the problems with trying to label Chavez a Marxist. Those who make such an effort anyway tend to know far too little about Marx and far too little about Chavez.
It's cute that you think I'm envious.
While he may not have been as far left as you are, Chavez himself self-identified, and labeled himself as a Marxist; I didn't do that. And it is the height of arrogance for you to believe that you know his ideology and beliefs better than him.
Prior to the 1970's or so, the US had notions and standards about wages that were much more in line with European notions and standards. People like authors, CEO's, actors, and athletes were paid according to established and traditional industry standards that effectively tied their compensation to standards in effect in more ordinary parts of the economy.
Then the idea arose that these people were actually individualized assets who should be paid at competitive market-based rates. All connection to the worth and wages of the common man was simply lost here in the ensuing years.
Why would the compensation of uncommon individuals be tied to the "worth and wages of the common man?" That is a decidedly socialist idea that has been thankfully set aside in this country. Many fewer people will excel when the rewards are artificially tied to a lower common level of achievement.
There is for those who start judging, they judge because of their own envy.
Anyone who envies rich people should relax, they'll never be one.
Morals don't belong in business, its either legal or it ain't.
People who invoke it are either not in business or are in business using it as a mkting tool.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
