Wealth Inequality in America

[Rohirrim]

Enjoy the video.

[Fedaykin]

In a thread here I once posed the question that video does:

Is the CEO of a company worth 400x the contribution of the average employee? Why or why not?

No one cared to actually answer.

An remember, that's the average CEO, not the worst.

Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), makes 2,500x what his average employee makes. What could one person do that even remotely justifies that amount of money compared to the folks actually doing the work? One of the top engineers (not even the average!) who actually designs and makes Apple products has to work months to earn the money Tim Cook makes in an hour.

I really want to know what people think justifies that.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

In a thread here I once posed the question that video does:

Is the CEO of a company worth 400x the contribution of the average employee? Why or why not?

No one cared to actually answer.

An remember, that's the average CEO, not the worst.

Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), makes 2,500x what his average employee makes. What could one person do that even remotely justifies that amount of money compared to the folks actually doing the work? One of the top engineers (not even the average!) who actually designs and makes Apple products has to work months to earn the money Tim Cook makes in an hour.

I really want to know what people think justifies that.

Their argument would be that is what the market decided when the CEO and the board agreed to the compensation package.

With regards to the ever growing inequality, the apathy and numbness towards the current march to neo-feudalism is disheartening. Why Occupy hasn't been more of a force is also troubling. Republicans are good at personalizing what voting for them means, the last time I can remember the Democrats doing that was in the 60's and 70's. Though they do have it in gay rights, but it's not enough.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

In a thread here I once posed the question that video does:

Is the CEO of a company worth 400x the contribution of the average employee? Why or why not?

No one cared to actually answer.

An remember, that's the average CEO, not the worst.

Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), makes 2,500x what his average employee makes. What could one person do that even remotely justifies that amount of money compared to the folks actually doing the work? One of the top engineers (not even the average!) who actually designs and makes Apple products has to work months to earn the money Tim Cook makes in an hour.

I really want to know what people think justifies that.

I'm mystified as well. Most of America's CEOs are easily replaceable. I'm willing to bet that for most of them, there are dozens -- maybe even hundreds -- within their organizations that could do their jobs just as well or better.

Elon Musk. Alan Mulally. Bob Lutz. The late Steve Jobs. The list of corporate CEOs in modern times that actually earned their high salaries are few IMO.

[Rohirrim]

It is ridiculously unsustainable. We are all like that guy in Florida, safe in our beds, while far below us the limestone flakes away.

[orinjkrush]

many, if not most CEOs are just figureheads, wannabe rock stars anyway. there are NO scientific studies which show the quantitative impact of CEOs, suggesting in reality they just don't matter. Japan gets away with something like a 4/1 salary ratio don't they? The CEO myth is perpetuated by those who financially gain from the myth. Replace Popes, Presidents and Boards of Directors and the larger organizational culture still predominates. That's why M&As are so horrendous.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

In a thread here I once posed the question that video does:

Is the CEO of a company worth 400x the contribution of the average employee? Why or why not?

No one cared to actually answer.

An remember, that's the average CEO, not the worst.

Tim Cook (CEO of Apple), makes 2,500x what his average employee makes. What could one person do that even remotely justifies that amount of money compared to the folks actually doing the work? One of the top engineers (not even the average!) who actually designs and makes Apple products has to work months to earn the money Tim Cook makes in an hour.

I really want to know what people think justifies that.

Apple's a pretty terrible example. I'm pretty sure they'd pay 10000x to have Steve back. And he'd be worth every penny.

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

It is ridiculously unsustainable. We are all like that guy in Florida, safe in our beds, while far below us the limestone flakes away.

ashleymbhs6_edublogs_org-Disney-Chicken-Little-Sky-Falling1.jpeg

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

Attachment 32122

I'm assuming you know how to read, Archie. Go to the library and check out some history books. See what happens to societies that allow themselves to drift into this kind of wealth inequality. Right now, the greedy are simply riding along on the inherent optimism and general good nature of the American people. That will change. When? Who knows? And what will be the catalyst? Who knows? Maybe a hot summer? Some kind of natural disaster? The current paradigm is unsustainable and the GOP's continuing "protect the rich at all costs" ideology is heading for a cliff.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm assuming you know how to read, Archie. Go to the library and check out some history books. See what happens to societies that allow themselves to drift into this kind of wealth inequality.

Maybe you could educate us with some of those historic "Confiscate and Redistribute the Wealth based on populist opinion" success stories.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Maybe you could educate us with some of those historic "Confiscate and Redistribute the Wealth based on populist opinion" success stories.

You mean re-redistributing. We just want it back to where it was before Reagan redistributed it. Funny how that word somehow has come to mean only one thing and not both.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by houghtam

You mean re-redistributing. We just want it back to where it was before Reagan redistributed it. Funny how that word somehow has come to mean only one thing and not both.

True. To the average "conservative", funneling all our wealth into the pockets of the few is just the natural order. That's the problem with so called "conservatives"; Too much respect for the status quo, even if the status quo is feudalism. You've got to admit, though, some form of feudalism has been the normal economic system for the overwhelming majority of civilization's history. Progressivism was a revolutionary concept when TR started implementing it over a hundred years ago. But the "conservatives" could just never get comfortable with the idea and they've been fighting it ever since ( with generous funding from the very wealthy who benefit most from the fight). It's difficult to convince some people that neither they, nor anybody else, should live like serfs.

Of course, TR took his lead from Lincoln:

"I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."

And again:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Then TR took it to the next step:

"At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress. In our day it appears as the struggle of freemen to gain and hold the right of self-government as against the special interests, who twist the methods of free government into machinery for defeating the popular will. At every stage, and under all circumstances, the essence of the struggle is to equalize opportunity, destroy privilege, and give to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth. That is nothing new."

It's sad, in a way, because the so-called conservatives have become the tools of the greedy, fighting for the rights of the already rich and powerful to gain even more wealth and more power, upholding a system of piracy and calling it patriotism. In other words, they're deluded. And even the great stars of the Republican firmament (TR and Lincoln) have told them so. And they still won't believe it.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by houghtam

You mean re-redistributing. We just want it back to where it was before Reagan redistributed it. Funny how that word somehow has come to mean only one thing and not both.

Exactly. You've got guys like Romney who pay half the tax rate of an average citizen, and they've got the Tea Party dopes convinced that that's somehow fair, and those who attempt to change it are communist agents.

[Rohirrim]

They called TR a socialist. Here's something about the whole mess that I find absurdly funny; Many of the people who have benefited the most from the redistribution of wealth upwards over the last thirty years, in other words, those who have profited the most while the country has gone into debt, now hide a great quantity of that wealth offshore so it can't be taxed. Their argument is that if the government would lower their taxes even more, they would do us all a favor and "repatriate" that wealth. At the same, they have sold the poor tea party serfs on the idea that lower taxes, especially for them, are patriotic.

[BroncoBeavis]

"our wealth"

Heh. There's your problem right there.

[W*GS]

Special report: Offshore finance

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

"our wealth"

Heh. There's your problem right there.

I'd love to stick around and beat you like a drum, once again, but it gets tiresome and I have better things to do.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'd love to stick around and beat you like a drum,

There could be a first time for everything I guess.

I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents... The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature, for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society... Every one, by his property, or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order. And such men may safely and advantageously reserve to themselves a wholesome control over their public affairs, and a degree of freedom, which, in the hands of the canaille [the masses] of the cities of Europe, would be instantly perverted to the demolition and destruction of everything public and private.

-Thomas Jefferson ---As Constitutional as Separation of Church and State---

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

There could be a first time for everything I guess.



-Thomas Jefferson ---As Constitutional as Separation of Church and State---

"Taxation is, in fact, the most difficult function of government and that against which their citizens are most apt to be refractory. The general aim is, therefore, to adopt the mode most consonant with the circumstances and sentiments of the country." --Thomas Jefferson: Introduction to Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:460

Guess where the sentiments of the country lie? That should just about put an end to your dishonest and selective use of Jefferson.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

There could be a first time for everything I guess.



-Thomas Jefferson ---As Constitutional as Separation of Church and State---

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by houghtam

"Taxation is, in fact, the most difficult function of government and that against which their citizens are most apt to be refractory. The general aim is, therefore, to adopt the mode most consonant with the circumstances and sentiments of the country." --Thomas Jefferson: Introduction to Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:460

Guess where the sentiments of the country lie? That should just about put an end to your dishonest and selective use of Jefferson.

I see no point here. He's saying taxes are a sticky issue, best left tied to democratic processes. Nobody's saying taxes aren't necessary But as we all know, Jefferson was a huge proponent of the concept of enumerated (limited) powers. There is a place for taxation. But he would've never argued that your government has unlimited powers to use it for whatever they like. Only that which was prescribed.

To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

In the end, your argument is a 'mob rule' argument. Exactly what Madison warned about when he talked about Faction, or what TJ was talking about when he warned about turning things over to the "canaille"

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I see no point here. He's saying taxes are a sticky issue, best left tied to democratic processes. Nobody's saying taxes aren't necessary But as we all know, Jefferson was a huge proponent of the concept of enumerated (limited) powers. There is a place for taxation. But he would've never argued that your government has unlimited powers to use it for whatever they like. Only that which was prescribed.



In the end, your argument is a 'mob rule' argument. Exactly what Madison warned about when he talked about Faction, or what TJ was talking about when he warned about turning things over to the "canaille"

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise."

- Your boy TJ, speaking about France...whose wealth distribution, if you recall, looked a lot like the US today.

See, I can play the Fast and Loose with Thomas Jefferson Quotes game, too! We all can!

[houghtam]

Hey look at me, I can quote Jefferson. As if there weren't dozens of other views at the founding of the nation. I wonder if that's why Jefferson was the one who suggested we rewrote the Constitution every 19 years.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by houghtam

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
rise."

- Your boy TJ, speaking about France...whose wealth distribution, if you recall, looked a lot like the US today.

See, I can play the Fast and Loose with Thomas Jefferson Quotes game, too! We all can!

Neither of us is playing fast and loose. It's the nature of the conflict. There's a danger in the purity of either approach. Jefferson saw both sides. There's nothing wrong with progressive taxation, only when it becomes confiscatory (a principle which I believe to be in play any time more than a half share goes to the government)

And I wouldn't say TJ is my guy so much as I like to use him because he's the only FF I'm aware of whose mere utterances have been given full Constitutional weight by certain people.

Jefferson was right about some things. As was Hamilton or Madison. But they didn't always agree with each other, except in very basic principles.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Neither of us is playing fast and loose. It's the nature of the conflict. There's a danger in the purity of either approach. Jefferson saw both sides. There's nothing wrong with progressive taxation, only when it becomes confiscatory (a principle which I believe to be in play any time more than a half share goes to the government)

And I wouldn't say TJ is my guy so much as I like to use him because he's the only FF I'm aware of whose mere utterances have been given full Constitutional weight by certain people.

Jefferson was right about some things. As was Hamilton or Madison. But they didn't always agree with each other, except in very basic principles.

Yeah.

Funny how I recall your argument then was "there is no way a person back then would even have considered atheism and keeping god out of politics" or some such...interesting how the "pay attention to the times they lived in" had to work for religion and politics, but absolutely can't for gun control. Double standard much?