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.
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.
One would suppose that the compensation of "uncommon individuals" would be driven by market forces. The assertion is not that these forces are cruel, insensate, inhumane etc. ... but on the contrary, that they are being corrupted, and not allowed to function. In other words, the current compensation of CEOs is because of capitalism, but in spite of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
Anyone who envies rich people should relax, they'll never be one.
On the contrary, envy is a powerful motivating force. If you worked hard for your stuff, and I'm not envious of you, would it not follow, that my motivation for likewise working hard, would be flagging? But if I desire that stuff that you can already afford, wouldn't that spur me to redouble my efforts?
If the envious poor never became rich, we'd not have had any Horatio Alger stories.
Sounds like Marvel's "Agents of Plunder." As I say, I don't actually see that where I am.
I'm guessing you aren't invited to the closed meetings of world "leaders" where they discuss strategies to maximize their power and wealth? Me neither. But I can see the results.
The interesting thing about the globalization and finance project is that it benefited oligarchs everywhere. When you can put a plan together where all the rich people get richer, you can be sure that will get done! Poor people even benefited. It was just everybody else in developed countries who got the shaft.
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.
You should be thanking me for expanding your understandings of Chavez, even by such a little bit.
Why would the compensation of uncommon individuals be tied to the "worth and wages of the common man?"
Whatever the reasons, compensation paid to the sorts noted above was previously at MUCH lower multiples of the widely-used wages-of-the-common-man yardstick than is the case today. Things suddenly changed in and around the 1970's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
That is a decidedly socialist idea that has been thankfully set aside in this country.
Actually, it was at the time more of a corporatist idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
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.
There is certainly envy enough in the world, and in this very forum as well. The certainty of envy ruling one out from achieving wealth is a good deal less well-demonstrated, I would say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
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.
You make a powerful case for strong and active government oversight and regulation.
I'm guessing you aren't invited to the closed meetings of world "leaders" where they discuss strategies to maximize their power and wealth? Me neither. But I can see the results.
Thank God for your insights! Without them, we would all be at the mercy of the Bilderburgers and Trilateralists! I myself can only participate in meetings with other individuals of these parts who are also involved in local philanthropy in order to develop fund-raising, event, and other such strategies.
... I myself can only participate in meetings with other individuals of these parts who are also involved in local philanthropy in order to develop fund-raising, event, and other such strategies.
Americans are a remarkably charitable people, and no doubt the capacity to be charitable increases with increasing wealth. But in the above, isn't there a self-selection bias? Is it not the case, that persons associated with philanthropic activities would be more disposed towards philanthropic behavior (whether for genuine altruism or mere appearances)? Or are we to believe that by becoming wealthy, a person is mentally transformed, so as to dispense with former parsimony, becoming instead minded towards selfless giving and volunteerism?
By the same token, persons at my hiking meetup are generally quite fit, and the elderly people at my chess club tend to have good memory. Do we conclude from this, that small-town Midwesterners are generally fit, and that elderly people have good memory?
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.
