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.
That is nothing new. No one is entitled to move up in "class" nor should it be expected. If you are very smart and a risk taker it can be done.
I have seen quotes like this for decades, extolling the benefits of being a risk taker, in education, investment, employment, relationships, practically anything.
It's called risk because it's risky, not because it is a better way. The most successful are those who are able to leverage their risk onto others, and reap the rewards themselves. Risk to yourself is not the road to success. People sell high risk investments as though they will have higher returns just because they are risky. That's just not true. There will always be a small percentage of high risk investments that pays off, and many more that lose everything or break even.
Most people trying to move up in a class have only ONE chance to take the RIGHT risk, because the wrong risk will drain their resources for years, decades, or forever.
Next whenever I look at these huge CEO salaries, I wonder how those individuals have been able to make it to the top. If they inherited those positions, then we could again feel indignant and victimized. That is almost never the case. Many have been lucky, worked hard, and have had a string of successes and advancements. Almost without exception they are masters at working with others while promoting themselves. They have self confidence and initiative. All of that is the exact opposite of being sucked in by a sensational article that appeals to a sense of victimization. Almost none of us has what it takes to make it up the ranks and become a highly paid CEO. However, it makes a lot of sense to ignore the victimization and the woe-is-me attitude. Instead we need to figure out what we can do to improve our skills and opportunities and to advance our careers. If you want to be a victim, that will happen. IMO you will deserve your fate.
What I feel he is talking about is the proportion of money going into a select few. This happens even more in India, Russia etc. Many billionaires running the govt, middle class being told you can come up in life by hard work and ethics.
And I think that the important thing to note, as inequality grows, the middle class shrinks. Our middle class has fallen below the middle classes of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia in both wealth and well being. USA also loses out in social mobility to those same countries. In other words, you're more likely to die in the same class your were born in
I would argue that is almost always the case. You grow accustomed to what you know. The power sociological and social psychological effects have on a human is astounding.
We have taken on several tens of millions of aliens, most are illegal, unskilled and migrant farm workers. Is it any wonder that social mobility has become more limited?
We also have one of the world's worst education systems. We have not even started to figure out how to fix the system. We are trying to hold teachers accountable for truant kids who don't want to learn and have broken home lives that do not promote education. Our system does not even work well at the high end. Students seem to have a sense of entitlement and see little reason to work hard. Education in sciences and technology is horrible. This lazy sense of entitlement extends into college. Anyone who has taught in college can readily see the changes. Kids won't get up for morning classes. Colleges close down Thursday afternoon so the weekend parties can begin. The majority of kids cannot make it through college in 4 years even if they have no financial issues.
A lot of kids get out of college and then expect that the world owes them a good living, even though they did not work hard, did not learn much and have minimal employable skills. Those without college degrees are almost always worse off. They are looking for good paying jobs that do not require much education or training. That is happening less frequently with our more technological workplaces.
Unfortunately it is way too easy to blame someone else. Those in power or with wealth must be to blame. I spent my life working hard, sacrificing and trying to learn and excel at my job. Now that I am getting older I have even less patience with those who are fat, dumb, and lazy and still expect to see upward mobility.
So everyone here is basically happy with the fact that VP level and up management keep making more and more money, while the rest of the company is lucky to receive a 2% raise every year which rarely if ever covers cost of living increases? That's what I'm pretty much getting from most of you who are for some reason siding with the top tier side of the income inequality issue.
Everyone keeps saying "well just go out and make yourself better" but they keep forgetting that 100% of the working population can NOT be upper level management, it's impossible. And those that can't be VP's and CxO's need to be paid fairly as well. It's just flat out greed and nothing else, and I unfortunately do not see it changing soon, if ever.
Everyone keeps saying "well just go out and make yourself better" but they keep forgetting that 100% of the working population can NOT be upper level management, it's impossible. And those that can't be VP's and CxO's need to be paid fairly as well. It's just flat out greed and nothing else, and I unfortunately do not see it changing soon, if ever.
Isn't that the reason why upper level managements are paid more? They have skills and visions that non-management workers do not. The market dictates how much upper management should make.
So everyone here is basically happy with the fact that VP level and up management keep making more and more money, while the rest of the company is lucky to receive a 2% raise every year which rarely if ever covers cost of living increases? That's what I'm pretty much getting from most of you who are for some reason siding with the top tier side of the income inequality issue.
Everyone keeps saying "well just go out and make yourself better" but they keep forgetting that 100% of the working population can NOT be upper level management, it's impossible. And those that can't be VP's and CxO's need to be paid fairly as well. It's just flat out greed and nothing else, and I unfortunately do not see it changing soon, if ever.
I wouldn't say any one is happy with that, other than those VP's. The realists amongst us understand why it works the way it does and accept the reality of it.
You may not find other people's high pay to be fair, but those who set the pay did so because they found it to be fair. Given that it is not your cash with which execs are paid, I tend to discount your opinion of the rate.
Could companies get away with paying less for their execs? Certainly they could. It would even make many of them more profitable. But that is not my decision to make any more than it is your's or the OP's.
That is why some of us side with the top tier (inexplicably to those who find income inequality to be a problem). We recognize equality of opportunity and do not expect equality of result.
Making yourself better is only very rarely going to mean moving to the upper levels of management.
You can also work really hard sweeping the floor, bagging groceries or doing hundreds of other low paid jobs and you can find that you get no where. Instead you need to develop the education and skills needed to succeed. That typically will mean sacrifice, hard work and maybe some luck. But as the old saying goes: opportunity rarely comes knocking---you need to look for it.
We are a competitive capitalistic society. What is "fair" is based on the value someone can command. Communist countries tried paying everyone "fairly" and that notion failed. All of them have moved towards a capitalistic model. If you want to be paid more then you need to be worth more as an employee. Or you could work for yourself.
It sounds like you are greed in that you want to be paid more than you are worth. Or do we just use the term "greed" to apply to people who make more money than we do?
So everyone here is basically happy with the fact that VP level and up management keep making more and more money, while the rest of the company is lucky to receive a 2% raise every year which rarely if ever covers cost of living increases? That's what I'm pretty much getting from most of you who are for some reason siding with the top tier side of the income inequality issue.
Everyone keeps saying "well just go out and make yourself better" but they keep forgetting that 100% of the working population can NOT be upper level management, it's impossible. And those that can't be VP's and CxO's need to be paid fairly as well. It's just flat out greed and nothing else, and I unfortunately do not see it changing soon, if ever.
Just because upper management is the super rich doesn't mean you cannot become promoted to a comfortable income even with a 2% raise.
Isn't that the reason why upper level managements are paid more? They have skills and visions that non-management workers do not. The market dictates how much upper management should make.
They are also just as replaceable at their jobs as the rest of us. The CEO of my company couldn't do the job I do, hell my manager couldn't do the job I do. That's not a knock against them, because I couldn't do their job. But still, without my skill set their jobs wouldn't exist, and without theirs mine wouldn't exist. However on that note, I'm not asking for CEO pay because I believe they do deserve more because yes, they have put in the work to deserve more pay. But to bring in millions of dollars in salary alone while the rest of us get <$100,000 (as an example), and for them to get raises and bonuses while our pay is near frozen and the possibility of a bonus is non-existent? C'mon, you can't tell me that's in any way fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosopis
I wouldn't say any one is happy with that, other than those VP's. The realists amongst us understand why it works the way it does and accept the reality of it.
You may not find other people's high pay to be fair, but those who set the pay did so because they found it to be fair. Given that it is not your cash with which execs are paid, I tend to discount your opinion of the rate.
Could companies get away with paying less for their execs? Certainly they could. It would even make many of them more profitable. But that is not my decision to make any more than it is your's or the OP's.
That is why some of us side with the top tier (inexplicably to those who find income inequality to be a problem). We recognize equality of opportunity and do not expect equality of result.
Not my cash? Sure it is, it's money being diverted away from myself and my colleagues, and being done so by other people making too much money, the ones you said "found it to be fair". Of course they found it to be fair, it's in their best interest to pay someone millions of undeserved dollars because it will help them in turn. It's the tail wagging the dog and nothing else. Literally none of your post makes any realistic sense, and you're basically just saying "it's that way because the rich people said it has to be that way and none of us would understand it", which is essentially straight BS.
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.
