What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, I'm just pointing out a basic truth. None of these people could have conceivably done more useful work than the entire lifetimes work of thousands of people.
Sure, corporate CEOs and super rich are much more productive than the average person....but their brains still tick at a mere 1000hz. They can still only speak at a slowish 150wpm and listen at the same rate. Their memories still have limited durations like all other mortal humans. It just isn't physically possible for them to have done the work of 10,000 other people.
The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
In some cases, the money was stolen from fortunes made by the ideas and productive results of employees of the company. Does anyone truly believe Jobs invented the imac and made it's phenomenal success possible? If you believe that, ask Wozniac what Jobs did with Wozniac's work at Atari.
Before someone accuses me of the obvious : no, I am personally involved in any of this. I'm simply noting the truth.
That's stupid. The money is wealth generated by the corporation. Most of these people are company founders (Gates, Allen, Bezos, Dell, etc) and own a large chunk of the stock. As the stock price goes up, their net worth increases. Pretty simple actually.
Stolen from the shareholders? What if they *are* the shareholders?
The only way I'd agree with you is if you were talking about the amounts of money CEOs are compensated. Like the $30 million salaires and $50 million bonuses and such... those are so f
Some seem to forget that 'worth' is relative and the only value it would have is what others are willing to 'trade' in return for it. The proverbial dying in the desert of dehydration and no one willing to trade their canteen full of water for that brick of gold in your pocket...
What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, I'm just pointing out a basic truth. None of these people could have conceivably done more useful work than the entire lifetimes work of thousands of people.
Sure they can. They've provided work for a lifetime for thousands of people.
This is an example of a logical error. Yes, they lead the tiller on the ship...but simply because the decisions they make touch the wheel, does this mean they are 10,000 times as useful as anyone else? Is it somehow a rare trait for an individual to be able to understand and lead a corporate mechanism? Of course not.
It's like saying the hand on the wheel is 100,000 times as important as the lookouts in the crow's nests or the actual tiller man in the engine room. Sure, the captain's hand perhaps is a
It's like saying the hand on the
wheel is 100,000 times as important as the lookouts in the crow's nests or the actual tiller man in the engine room.
Sure, the captain's hand perhaps is a litle more important than the less trained hands of the kitchen boy's....but not
thousands or millions of times more as in corporations. Plenty of educated people exist who can provide these sorts of
decisions, some no doubt better than the executives we have
So in other words, it's something like 90% luck and 10% skill.
Sure, luck plays a significant role in separating the super rich from the rich. Bill Gates, for instance, is a viscous, cut-throat bastard who probably would have done OK starting a wide range of businesses. He just so happened to luck out and be starting out at the right time to seize a massive new industry at birth (i.e., the software industry).
Who cares, though? With hard work and smart money management, it's not too hard to become
The people on the rich list aren't there because they are steering the boat, they are there because they risked their livlihood to build the boat and set it to sea. If the boat sinks, they are the ones that are screwed the most.
Most new businesses fail. It is a risky thing for your own personal livlihood to start your own business because if it fails, you don't have income to fall back on and you are likely deep in debt. The owners of the company absolutely deserve the right to reap the benefits of the ris
I argue that you statements house the logical error.
It's like saying the hand on the wheel is 100,000 times as important as the lookouts in the crow's nests or the actual tiller man in the engine room.
1) The Captain is personally responsible for the continued livelihoods of his crew. The Captain calls the shots, the captain takes the risks, the captain accepts the responsibility. The crew follows his orders.
2) The Captain, by chance, was granted by Nature an ab
"The Captain is personally responsible for the continued livelihoods of his crew. The Captain calls the shots, the captain takes the risks, the captain accepts the responsibility."
Your eugenics-smelling spiel went out of fashion in science some decades ago, except for the irreparably arrogant, of course.
Where did you get "eugenics" out of my post? I am talking nothing about Hitler-esque manipulation of races, as that is also "playing God." What I am merely saying is it is best to recognize the cards we were dealt and to do the best we can with them.
It is arguable that this is what the US Constitution is attempting to do, by recognizing the absolute power corrupts absolutely and
Is it just me, or has Slashdot gotten disturbingly political (and specifically Leftsist)? I just want news for nerds, not news for Comrades.
Look, some corporate types got some of their money through devious and immoral means. Just look at the Delta executives who asked their employees to take big pay cuts while the executives themselves were ensuring that their pension plan could never run out of money. That was legal, but wrong. Some executives at other companies straight-out broke the law (take your
Couple summers ago, when the unions shut down the ports in California, I read that the average wage of a dockworker there was $120,000 a year, and they went on strike because management wanted to streamline the operation by using barcodes and handheld computers. Utterly bloated and inefficient, and the cost gets passed on to anyone paying for imports or trying to make money from exports.
You know, it's *really* hard to sympathize with unions in situations like that.
The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
For the largest part this wealth isn't in the form of money, it's in stock, mostly shares in the company they have founded. Most of these super-rich simply own a goodly chunk of a company that has become immensely valuable.
What remains is the question of whether or not it is right that these people do so well out of founding a company and making it successful. You can look at it two ways. some would say the success of these companies was due not just to the founder, but also due to the hard work of the other employees. Others will point out that the risk and effort taken by the company founder is what enables all these employees to earn a living in the first place. Whatever the case; these company founders are not particularly productive, not to the tune of billions of dollars anyway. But they founded their respective companies and own them... that's where their fortune derives from. Should that ownership be taken away from them when the company takes off? I think not.
Just remember that one of the best ways to become rich yourself is to start your own business and make it successful. Even a moderately successful small-scale company can be worth a nice deal of money; not billions, but enough to keep you comfortable.
You don't even have to start the company yourself. I've been invited to help with a startup... and if I am going to pour my sweat and tears into the company (and with a startup, I can expect to have to), my efforts will be a large contribution to the success of the company. That means I want to have a stake in the potential success as well: not in the form of a large salary, but in a part ownership of the company.
That's just it. The way it was stolen was indirect : both through options packages that effectively take even MORE of the company and give it to these founders or higher ups, OR...
The shareholders were duped into agreeing that the 'first' guy to start the company should keep a significant fraction of the shares even though the shareholders invest many thousands or millions of times more dollars than the founder ever did.
The practical result is theft. Sure, it usually doesn't violate the laws...but that
The shareholders were duped into agreeing that the 'first' guy to start the company should keep a significant fraction of the shares even though the shareholders invest many thousands or millions of times more dollars than the founder ever did.
And yet the shareholders, who were "duped", make money in the end because their stock values rise. The employees make money from their jobs. The executives make money from guiding and directing the work of the other employees, thus making creations like the automob
I don't have a deep seated hatred of everyone 'rich'. People who one could say, within the bounds of reason, have 'earned' their money I have no problem with. I don't resent doctors or lawyers or top managers their wealth, as long as it falls somewhere within the bounds of reason for the work they do (mere tens of millions at the very top of the curve). Tens of billions is an entirely different matter.
What utter crap. What utter, relativistic, crap. First, who are you to decide what is within the bounds of reason? How did what you earn per year become the measuring stick? If it's not you, who decided? Does the average or the mean income determine what is "in bounds"? How about the lowest income? What's the rule I should follow here? Second, to apply your thinking, I bet there is some guy in Bangladesh, Liberia or the Sudan who makes less than $100 a year. ShooterNeo, if you have an entry level IT jo
Not that I'm a big fan of the uber-weathy, since I'm not one of them, but in most cases these people *are* shareholders of the corporation in question. They're wealthy *because* they are shareholders. Do you think Gates has $55bn in cash? No, he's got gobs of stock.
See above. The company shareholders, obviously. An analogy : Mr. G starts a lemonade stand. He spends $10 of his own money getting it going, and it makes money. You and a few thousand other investors come in, then. He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company. You have been stolen from.
He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company. You have been stolen from.
First, you AGREE.
Second, if you're an investor, you get stocks, or you get interest on your loan. If I gave you 10 million dollars, I wouldn't just hand it over... I'd want something for that money, like 10% of your company, or 10% interest over 20 years. In the end, I'd make money, not lose it.
Investors don't always "lose" money - but, when they make a profit, they do always 'steal' it... if they make money on selling stock which is 'worth' $30 on the 'open market', then them selling it is only passing on the true liability of the value of the stock to the next guy, who has to sell it before he gets his share, to the next guy, who then has to sell it to get anything out of it, etc.
So, the 'value' of the stock gets passed on and on, ad infinitum, down to the little guy, and
So you're saying that if I started a company today and held all the stocks, grew the company into a major player in some national-wide market, then sold my stocks for a big profit, I'd be stealing that money from the person that sometime down the road would buy the stock that I held just before the stock market crashed and they had to sell for less than they bought it for? I suppose that does kinda make sense in a weird, twisted sort of illogical and unreasonable way. Yeah, I can see it now.
Well. Say that hunk of junk was worth, in reality, $50 to some scrap-metal dealer. Any attempt to make it more valuable by 'restoring it into a working-condition automobile' would be an attempt to make the lump of metal 'worth' more to someone else by making it serve a different function.
And, I wouldn't say he 'stole' money from the person he sold it too - after all, the difference between 'stealing' and 'not-stealing' is whether or not the person currently in posession of what is being sold wants to giv
after all, the difference between 'stealing' and 'not-stealing' is whether or not the person currently in posession of what is being sold wants to give it to you or not...
So you're implying that the investors in a new company don't actually want to invest? They're faking it, somehow? The investor has the money, and the entrepeneur has the business. The investor buys a chunk of the business willingly. How's that stealing?
Ummm, Dude. I'd just let things drop if I you were you, there's no way you're coming out of this arguement ahead.
All too often I come across people who have never studied economics or finance, yet none-the-less are extremely opinionated on the matter. There "theories" are usually dereft of reason, but no amount of logic and facts will convince them of out.
Look for the people shouting loudest at the anti-trade/globalization shingdings. You'll see what I mean.
The investors invest, hoping that the worth of the company over time will convince other people to put their money into it, and thus, subsequently, they can cash out.
This is called 'making your money make you more money', and it yes, it is a form of stealing. Where did that 'worth' actually come from?
So, not only do you not know how corporate ownership works, you are totally ignorant of the stock market.
Let me guess . . . you're an American public high school teacher?
Guess what. Wealth can *actually be created*. Seriously. The value of a company can actually increase. Don't confuse how the stock market was working in 1999 with how it's supposed to work. Nobody with any brains thought that tech stocks during the bubble were anything other that a pyramid scheme.
You and a few thousand other investors come in, then. He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company. You have been stolen from
I'm sure the investors who bought during Microsoft's IPO feel really shafted. I mean, they only saw a 500-fold return on their investments (assuming they bought at IPO and sold at the 1999 peak).
You still don't understand how this works: When the investors put in their $10 millio
Mr. G starts a lemonade stand. He spends $10 of his own money getting it going, and it makes money. You and a few thousand other investors come in, then. He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company.
You really have no clue how company ownership works, do you?
Oh please. Those investors knew how much Gates was going to get. They got to vote for the board members, they approved further stock options and grants. They were more than willing to give Gates that stock because having him run the company meant their stock value went through the roof. Trickery? Christ, I wish *I'd* been tricked into putting a few thousand bucks into Microsoft's IPO. I'd be retired by now.
You're unclear on the "stealing" thing, aren't you? If you think Gates defrauded the stockhold
Now hold on a minute here, accusing these people of stealing is taking things a BIT far.
What you're failing to recognize is the difference between net worth and salary. Salary is generally recognized as a compensation for labor.
Gates and Jobs, for example, were founders of their companies. They took risks, they had good ideas, and they had the leadership to drive their companies to financial success (you can argue amonst yourselves about the technical success of their products, but the financial accomplishments of their companies is pretty evident).
Most of their net worth came about through equity that they have as the founders of these companies, NOT through their salaries. Yes, their salaries are high, but not $40 billion high. Most of this net worth was accumulated through the appreciation of their equity.
Then Gates decided to pay dividends on his stock and instantly became a few billion dollars richer.
Now hang on just a minute here. The original poster I was replying to wrote:
In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
So now, if you don't give dividends, you're "stealing from the shareholders," but if you do give dividends, you're just tr
While Microsoft supports your argument (BillG only makes around $500K if I recall correctly) other companies like Boeing (top execs take home millions a year in salary and bonuses - not including stock) prove your point wrong. Microsoft is part of a relatively new breed of corporations that believes more in stock compensation than cash compensation (which makes sense). Many corporations still operate as Boeing does - they allow execs to get grossly overpaid even when their business if flailing financially
While Microsoft supports your argument (BillG only makes around $500K if I recall correctly) other companies like Boeing (top execs take home millions a year in salary and bonuses - not including stock) prove your point wrong. Microsoft is part of a relatively new breed of corporations that believes more in stock compensation than cash compensation (which makes sense). Many corporations still operate as Boeing does - they allow execs to get grossly overpaid even when their business if flailing financiall
It's not about dollar figure, it's about the disparity of income between an owner and his workers. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I just see something that doesn't look right.
It's not about dollar figure, it's about the disparity of income between an owner and his workers. I'm not saying I have all the answers, I just see something that doesn't look right.
What's not right? What is to stop any of those workers from creating and executing on an idea, educating themselves, succeeding?
Look at how much wealth has been created in the last couple of generations in America. There are obviously not impenetrable barriers to entry to the "millionaires club."
So go out and be your own boss.Have good ideas and then make money off them. That's how to make lots of money.
Yes it's risky, yes there's no steady salary, yes you've risked your life savings, yes for every one that makes it big there's a score that crash and burn.
But it is probably the best (maybe the only) way to become rich. Some old proveb about those who risk a lot get a lot.
That being said, I'm very comfortable with my nice steady job. Will I become rich? No, most likely not. Do I care? No, I don't
Its not about how much labor you do, you dont get paid based on merit, you get paid based on who you know, luck, your last name, what you look like, what gender you are, etc etc.
IF you want a million dollars, have a last name with the name Bush or Kennedy, be a white male, and wait a while. Thats all it really takes.
You dont need intelligence, you'll get accepted into Harvard on name alone, you dont need to be talented, you'll get hired because everyone knows your parents, you might need to work hard but
Yeah like Bill Gates & Oprah - they were just born rich?
As for you, you are a spoiled brat! Go live in Bangladesh and you come back on here and tell us you have no advantage!
American's really have NO idea what the rest of the world is like. All you can do is get on here and complain that you aren't as rich as these super-rich people? Instead of whining on here because you aren't a Kennedy why don't you change your name to Kennedy and see if that helps? Or maybe you could just stop whining and sta
Yeah like Bill Gates & Oprah - they were just born rich? Bill Gates was a millionare from birth, its a fact, do your research before posting.
Oprah I don't know much about her.
As for you, you are a spoiled brat! Go live in Bangladesh and you come back on here and tell us you have no advantage!
People in India actually have jobs, so do they have the advantage over me? There is no advantage based on where you are on the map. You can live in the USA and be a jobless person with no advantages just like
Why do I complain? Because I'm not here to compete, I dont care about being rich, I'm not interested in working longer hours than everyone else in the world for pride, I do want universal healthcare, I do want more than 50% of highschool students to earn their diploma.
Am I not American? Do you actually believe in freedom of speech?
So you don't want to compete, but you want people who do compete to give you stuff for free?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Feel free to beg all you want, but
Im not bitter. Very happy with my life, because I don't think some "rich person" is keeping me down, like some of the people on this thread.
I can survive without becoming a corporate zealot obsessed with competition. I'm not asking for free stuff, but I'll accept free stuff.
Never suggested that one must be obsessed with competition, just said don't be pissed off if those who do compete have more than you do. It doesn't mean they were stealing it, it doesn't mean they don't
Well for your information Oprah grew up a poor black girl.
I don't care what advantages Bill Gates had. I could give you those same advantages and you would probably be bagging groceries for a living.
America is NOT the most stressful, competitive or difficult country to live in because I've been there, done that. You should try going to a place where people have to compete over even fewer resources and they have bad infrastructure to boot,(get it, to boot...hehe). But seriously, you can't work if you
IF you want a million dollars, have a last name with the name Bush or Kennedy, be a white male, and wait a while.
Thats all it really takes.
...
For the rest of us, working hard wont get us anywhere but into an early grave
Actually, 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires [selfgrowth.com]. I guess there must be an awful lot of people changing their name to Bush or Kennedy, huh? The truth is, a lifetime of hard work will pay off if you are consistent about saving ~15% of your earnings a
Yeah thats Millionaires, how about Billionaires? I thought we were talking about Mr.Gates, Steve Balmer, and those guys.
You can pull a stat out of your ass and it means nothing if its ouut of contex and not combined with facts proving that most rich people earned it.
Sure you can say most millionaires earned it, that could mean people with over 1 million dollars on that list, but what about billionaires, what about people with 100 million + ?
Show me some real stats and not stats you make up to help your
He doesn't want references. He wants to believe that only rich people can be rich, cause that gives him an excuse for not having to work hard. He said as much in an earlier post.
Why should he work hard, if there isn't a chance in the world he'll get rich? Which of course dooms him to failure anyway. Sad really.
But you did want "free" healthcare right? So you want something without having to work for it. Same issue. You'd rather think that working for something wouldn't help, so that you can blame your lack of healthcare on rich people instead of not wanting to work.
Read up on Mr Buffett. You know, the 2nd richest American (and if he lives another ten years, he'll take back the number one spot for damn sure).
Using your capital to earn money is just as valid as using labor. Someone ponying up a billion dollars for a project can get a lot more done that someone giving a couple years labor. And the guy putting up the billion dollars is risking a *hell* of a lot more than the guy getting a paycheck every two weeks.
Dude. Ever seen Monty Python's life of Brian? Seen the scene at the end in which the guys on crosses start singing "Look on the bright side of life"?
That, dude, is called optimism. You'll seriously be much happier if you try it sometime. Instead of bitching and complaining that someone has more than you, be happy with what you've got. If ya ain't happy with what ya got now, then you'll never be happy, as there's always going to be something you don't have.
What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever.
For those individuals who made their wealth instead of inheriting it, by definition the wealth they've amassed is the "worth" of their labor (minus investment gains, of course). Whether you like MS or not, they've been a major player in the mass acceptance of PC's, which has led to gigantic productivity gains around the world over the last two decades. And as any economist c
For those individuals who made their wealth instead of inheriting it, by definition the wealth they've amassed is the "worth" of their labor... While the original poster was wrong in claiming they had stolen the money, this is also bogus. Chance has a hand in things - much of this wealth was a result of being in the right place at the right time. If I won the World Series of Poker (cash prize of nearly $2 million) would you say that my labors were worth that much? That would be a hard position to defend. Si
The notion that "much of this wealth was a result of being in the right place at the right time" is patently absurd (although I guess it might make one feel better about not being rich). Luck may have a factor in presenting rare opportunities, but it is still up to individuals and organizations to take advantage of them. Merely coming up with the idea for a GUI interface or e-commerce model isn't, of itself, the greatest contribution to society - it takes someone to turn that idea into a reality.
The notion that "much of this wealth was a result of being in the right place at the right time" is patently absurd (although I guess it might make one feel better about not being rich). Luck may have a factor in presenting rare opportunities...
Precisely. If Bill Gates had been born four years earlier or later, or if Paul Allen had not met Gates, etc., do you think that he would still be worth tens of billions? I will gladly concede that his abilities would have made him a multimillionaire regardless of
There, I said it. It is arbitrary. That Bill Gates is worth $55billion is *ONLY* a 'fact' because enough people got together and agreed that is how much he is worth to society, as represented by the one symbol everyone in society knows the meaning for: $
It is sort of stupid to get involved in whether its 'right' or whether its 'wrong' to consider someone so valuable. All money is arbitrary, anyway, and you can't say 'he isnt worth $1,0
Did that king hire mercenaries? Did the mercenaries enter into the contract knowing what the job entailed, of their own free will? And BTW, companies and capitalists still have to obey the laws of the land; they in no way are dictators.
*Anybody* can dig ditches. Very few people can effectivly "risk capital". Hell, less than a third of the households in the US make any serious attempt at investing towards their own freakin' retirement.
How about this analogy? Bob and Sue Doe invested their life savings
Their physical bodies may not have the ability to produce the value in their labor, but you neglect to understand that their money does far more labor. Most of these people didn't get rich by stealing, they got rich by investing. Crime doesn't pay very well, contrary to what the Enrons and the Worldcoms of the world would convince you.
The obscenely rich get more obscenely rich by investing their money. Those investments creates opportunitys for people who uses the investments to create labor. Though th
What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever. ... The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
I don't follow this. The company owners are not worthy of this money because they did not perform that much labor, yet the shareh
Laws of supply and demand, man. It doesn't just apply to labor, or material. It applies to money itself.
People who have money will try to put it work where it can get them the most money, just like a worker will go where he gets paid the most.
The genius businessman, who can use money to make money very effectively, will get all sorts of investor money. These people are rare; pro sports player kind of rare.
And obviously, the investors who are better at recognizing the genius businessman make more money
I think there should be a ceiling on the amount of wealth an individual can amass... enough to give people incentives to be creative and useful, but far far less than billions of dollars. I'm thinking something like 10 million.
I think there should be a ceiling on the amount of wealth an individual can amass... enough to give people incentives to be creative and useful, but far far less than billions of dollars. I'm thinking something like 10 million.
Creative? Yes. Useful? No. They'd just stuff all their net worth into offshore holding companies. And why 10 million? That's not very much in terms of "wealthy". Does this mean that all lottery pots will be capped a $10M too?
They'd just stuff all their net worth into offshore holding companies.
Definitely an interesting problem which I haven't thought through, though I'm not yet willing to concede that it's impossible to solve.
And why 10 million? That's not very much in terms of "wealthy".
I'm open to other numbers. I picked that number based on a gut feel of what I'd be happy with. My aspirations are perhaps very different from those of some other people; I'd simply like a nice, roomy house in a location of my choosing
Why stop there? We should put a ceiling on the amount people can spend too. Why not put a ceiling on the size of our houses, and the kinds of cars we drive. Let's put a ceiling on the amount of food we can buy, and the kinds of clothes we wear. In fact, why don't we make it simple and just build the same kinds of houses and cars and force everybody to live in them. Force everybody to wear government approved clothing, and eat government approved food, so we can enforce it. Just to keep it fair, we bet
My proposal was limited as specified because it addresses a specific problem: that of an increasingly small number of people controlling a concentration of wealth so great that it threatens to destabilize society. Create enough unhappy people without solutions and there will be a revolution. Not that I'm entirely opposed to revolution, but it's worthwhile to discuss how to avoid it if possible.
It isn't my intent to advocate regulation in every wa
None of these people could have conceivably done more useful work than the entire lifetimes work of thousands of people.
You are wrong because intelligence doesn't scale like that. 1000 ordinary people does not equal one Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo da Vinci or Isaac Newton or Ludwig van nce that one person can do more useful work than "thousands of people". So, your entire argument is based on faulty assumptions.
Actually, I've been of the opinion that human intelligence does have a scaling limit. Just because the ideas of these greats seem so impressive today doesn't mean much. First, if the individuals you named were really 1000 times smarter, how come the NET GAINS from their actions were much smaller than one would expect. The VAST majority of the inventions and ideas these people and others came up with never left the workshop. It's only now, after REinventing much of their work, that we praise them.
" What bothers me is there is no conceivable way these individuals could have performed over a billion dollars worth of labor, ever. I'm not advocating communism or socialism, I'm just pointing out a basic truth.... The money was not earned, it was stolen.
It actually DOES sound like you're advocating communism or socialism. To say the money was stolen it's wrong. You are right in pointing out that they did not perform x billions dollars worth of labor. But you're missing the big (and obvious point): c
Sure, corporate CEOs and super rich are much more productive than the average person.... - ShooterNeo
Now, hold on one minute! I take issue with this premise. Corporate CEOs and Rich folks are no more or less productive than anyone else - they just have the resources of thousands of workers to actualize their ideas. More often than not, they only enable the ideas of others to advance or not, based on their own business agenda (which mostly means 'what can make the most money in the shortest time with the
What I meant is most people who meet the super rich generally agree they are usually charming and intelligent and seem to possess the top 1-10% level of those traits. That is, they are noticably smarter, better social organizers, and more productive than most other people. However, I question whether they are really worth 4 to 6 orders of magnitude more than other people.
Since I don't think that's physically possible (for anyone to do more than 1 order of magnitude more work than an average educated pers
I have a problem with your generalizations. The rich people I have come into contact with are not any smarter (or dumber for that matter) than anyone else I come into contact with. My point was, and still is: everyone has talents that makes them a genius next to others - and the aparent 'productivity' of the Suits is the result of thousands of very smart people below them that are willing to allow the business to benefit, to a larger degree, from their work. Their productivity would evaporate overnight,
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
What bothers me (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, corporate CEOs and super rich are much more productive than the average person....but their brains still tick at a mere 1000hz. They can still only speak at a slowish 150wpm and listen at the same rate. Their memories still have limited durations like all other mortal humans. It just isn't physically possible for them to have done the work of 10,000 other people.
The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
In some cases, the money was stolen from fortunes made by the ideas and productive results of employees of the company. Does anyone truly believe Jobs invented the imac and made it's phenomenal success possible? If you believe that, ask Wozniac what Jobs did with Wozniac's work at Atari.
Before someone accuses me of the obvious : no, I am personally involved in any of this. I'm simply noting the truth.
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
Re:What bothers me (Score:1, Insightful)
Stolen from the shareholders? What if they *are* the shareholders?
The only way I'd agree with you is if you were talking about the amounts of money CEOs are compensated. Like the $30 million salaires and $50 million bonuses and such... those are so f
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
Re:What bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they can. They've provided work for a lifetime for thousands of people.
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
Sure, luck plays a significant role in separating the super rich from the rich. Bill Gates, for instance, is a viscous, cut-throat bastard who probably would have done OK starting a wide range of businesses. He just so happened to luck out and be starting out at the right time to seize a massive new industry at birth (i.e., the software industry).
Who cares, though? With hard work and smart money management, it's not too hard to become
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
I argue that you statements house the logical error.
It's like saying the hand on the wheel is 100,000 times as important as the lookouts in the crow's nests or the actual tiller man in the engine room.
1) The Captain is personally responsible for the continued livelihoods of his crew. The Captain calls the shots, the captain takes the risks, the captain accepts the responsibility. The crew follows his orders.
2) The Captain, by chance, was granted by Nature an ab
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
What responsibility?
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Where did you get "eugenics" out of my post? I am talking nothing about Hitler-esque manipulation of races, as that is also "playing God." What I am merely saying is it is best to recognize the cards we were dealt and to do the best we can with them.
It is arguable that this is what the US Constitution is attempting to do, by recognizing the absolute power corrupts absolutely and
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Should their wealth be taken back if they outsource that work away?
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Should their wealth be taken back if they outsource that work away?
Someone is still doing the work. Just not the original worker. People in India, Mexico and elsewhere need to eat too, you know.
Re:What bothers me (Score:1, Insightful)
Look, some corporate types got some of their money through devious and immoral means. Just look at the Delta executives who asked their employees to take big pay cuts while the executives themselves were ensuring that their pension plan could never run out of money. That was legal, but wrong. Some executives at other companies straight-out broke the law (take your
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
You know, it's *really* hard to sympathize with unions in situations like that.
Re:What bothers me (Score:4, Insightful)
What remains is the question of whether or not it is right that these people do so well out of founding a company and making it successful. You can look at it two ways. some would say the success of these companies was due not just to the founder, but also due to the hard work of the other employees. Others will point out that the risk and effort taken by the company founder is what enables all these employees to earn a living in the first place. Whatever the case; these company founders are not particularly productive, not to the tune of billions of dollars anyway. But they founded their respective companies and own them... that's where their fortune derives from. Should that ownership be taken away from them when the company takes off? I think not.
Just remember that one of the best ways to become rich yourself is to start your own business and make it successful. Even a moderately successful small-scale company can be worth a nice deal of money; not billions, but enough to keep you comfortable.
You don't even have to start the company yourself. I've been invited to help with a startup... and if I am going to pour my sweat and tears into the company (and with a startup, I can expect to have to), my efforts will be a large contribution to the success of the company. That means I want to have a stake in the potential success as well: not in the form of a large salary, but in a part ownership of the company.
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
The shareholders were duped into agreeing that the 'first' guy to start the company should keep a significant fraction of the shares even though the shareholders invest many thousands or millions of times more dollars than the founder ever did.
The practical result is theft. Sure, it usually doesn't violate the laws...but that
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet the shareholders, who were "duped", make money in the end because their stock values rise. The employees make money from their jobs. The executives make money from guiding and directing the work of the other employees, thus making creations like the automob
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Re:What bothers me (Score:3, Insightful)
First, who are you to decide what is within the bounds of reason? How did what you earn per year become the measuring stick? If it's not you, who decided? Does the average or the mean income determine what is "in bounds"? How about the lowest income? What's the rule I should follow here?
Second, to apply your thinking, I bet there is some guy in Bangladesh, Liberia or the Sudan who makes less than $100 a year. ShooterNeo, if you have an entry level IT jo
Ummm.. (Score:2)
So who exactly did he steal the money from?
Re:Ummm.. (Score:2)
Re:Ummm.. (Score:2)
First, you AGREE.
Second, if you're an investor, you get stocks, or you get interest on your loan. If I gave you 10 million dollars, I wouldn't just hand it over... I'd want something for that money, like 10% of your company, or 10% interest over 20 years. In the end, I'd make money, not lose it.
Third, you obviously aren't a busines
Re:Ummm.. (Score:1)
Investors don't always "lose" money - but, when they make a profit, they do always 'steal' it... if they make money on selling stock which is 'worth' $30 on the 'open market', then them selling it is only passing on the true liability of the value of the stock to the next guy, who has to sell it before he gets his share, to the next guy, who then has to sell it to get anything out of it, etc.
So, the 'value' of the stock gets passed on and on, ad infinitum, down to the little guy, and
Re:Ummm.. (Score:2)
So let me ask
Re:Ummm.. (Score:1)
And, I wouldn't say he 'stole' money from the person he sold it too - after all, the difference between 'stealing' and 'not-stealing' is whether or not the person currently in posession of what is being sold wants to giv
Re:Ummm.. (Score:2)
So you're implying that the investors in a new company don't actually want to invest? They're faking it, somehow? The investor has the money, and the entrepeneur has the business. The investor buys a chunk of the business willingly. How's that stealing?
Re:Ummm.. (Score:2)
All too often I come across people who have never studied economics or finance, yet none-the-less are extremely opinionated on the matter. There "theories" are usually dereft of reason, but no amount of logic and facts will convince them of out.
Look for the people shouting loudest at the anti-trade/globalization shingdings. You'll see what I mean.
Re:Ummm.. (Score:1)
This is called 'making your money make you more money', and it yes, it is a form of stealing. Where did that 'worth' actually come from?
Re:Ummm.. (Score:1)
Let me guess . . . you're an American public high school teacher?
Guess what. Wealth can *actually be created*. Seriously. The value of a company can actually increase. Don't confuse how the stock market was working in 1999 with how it's supposed to work. Nobody with any brains thought that tech stocks during the bubble were anything other that a pyramid scheme.
Yeah, right (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:1)
Re:Ummm.. (Score:3, Insightful)
You and a few thousand other investors come in, then. He tricks you and the other investors into agreeing to invest 10 million dollars into the stand, with Mr. G retaining a 30% stake in the company. You have been stolen from
I'm sure the investors who bought during Microsoft's IPO feel really shafted. I mean, they only saw a 500-fold return on their investments (assuming they bought at IPO and sold at the 1999 peak).
You still don't understand how this works: When the investors put in their $10 millio
Re:Ummm.. (Score:2)
they only saw a 500-fold return on their investments (assuming they bought at IPO and sold at the 1999 peak).
Correction: If they would have sold at the peak, they'd have gotten a 1000-fold return. If sold right now, they'd have a 500-fold return.
Re:Ummm.. (Score:1)
You really have no clue how company ownership works, do you?
Re:Ummm.. (Score:1)
You're unclear on the "stealing" thing, aren't you? If you think Gates defrauded the stockhold
Re:What bothers me (Score:5, Insightful)
What you're failing to recognize is the difference between net worth and salary. Salary is generally recognized as a compensation for labor.
Gates and Jobs, for example, were founders of their companies. They took risks, they had good ideas, and they had the leadership to drive their companies to financial success (you can argue amonst yourselves about the technical success of their products, but the financial accomplishments of their companies is pretty evident).
Most of their net worth came about through equity that they have as the founders of these companies, NOT through their salaries. Yes, their salaries are high, but not $40 billion high. Most of this net worth was accumulated through the appreciation of their equity.
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Now hang on just a minute here. The original poster I was replying to wrote:
So now, if you don't give dividends, you're "stealing from the shareholders," but if you do give dividends, you're just tr
Re:What bothers me (Score:1, Informative)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
What's not right? What is to stop any of those workers from creating and executing on an idea, educating themselves, succeeding?
Look at how much wealth has been created in the last couple of generations in America. There are obviously not impenetrable barriers to entry to the "millionaires club."
I know a lot of people
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
How's that for stopping 'em?
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Yes it's risky, yes there's no steady salary, yes you've risked your life savings, yes for every one that makes it big there's a score that crash and burn.
But it is probably the best (maybe the only) way to become rich. Some old proveb about those who risk a lot get a lot.
That being said, I'm very comfortable with my nice steady job. Will I become rich? No, most likely not. Do I care? No, I don't
Finally you see through all the lies! (Score:1, Troll)
Its not about how much labor you do, you dont get paid based on merit, you get paid based on who you know, luck, your last name, what you look like, what gender you are, etc etc.
IF you want a million dollars, have a last name with the name Bush or Kennedy, be a white male, and wait a while. Thats all it really takes.
You dont need intelligence, you'll get accepted into Harvard on name alone, you dont need to be talented, you'll get hired because everyone knows your parents, you might need to work hard but
Re:Finally you see through all the lies! (Score:1)
As for you, you are a spoiled brat! Go live in Bangladesh and you come back on here and tell us you have no advantage!
American's really have NO idea what the rest of the world is like. All you can do is get on here and complain that you aren't as rich as these super-rich people? Instead of whining on here because you aren't a Kennedy why don't you change your name to Kennedy and see if that helps? Or maybe you could just stop whining and sta
Re:Finally you see through all the lies! (Score:1)
Yeah like Bill Gates & Oprah - they were just born rich?
Bill Gates was a millionare from birth, its a fact, do your research before posting.
Oprah I don't know much about her.
As for you, you are a spoiled brat! Go live in Bangladesh and you come back on here and tell us you have no advantage!
People in India actually have jobs, so do they have the advantage over me? There is no advantage based on where you are on the map. You can live in the USA and be a jobless person with no advantages just like
Re:Finally you see through all the lies! (Score:1)
Am I not American? Do you actually believe in freedom of speech?
So you don't want to compete, but you want people who do compete to give you stuff for free?
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. Feel free to beg all you want, but
Re:Finally you see through all the lies! (Score:1)
Im not bitter. Very happy with my life, because I don't think some "rich person" is keeping me down, like some of the people on this thread.
I can survive without becoming a corporate zealot obsessed with competition. I'm not asking for free stuff, but I'll accept free stuff.
Never suggested that one must be obsessed with competition, just said don't be pissed off if those who do compete have more than you do. It doesn't mean they were stealing it, it doesn't mean they don't
Re:Finally you see through all the lies! (Score:1)
I don't care what advantages Bill Gates had. I could give you those same advantages and you would probably be bagging groceries for a living.
America is NOT the most stressful, competitive or difficult country to live in because I've been there, done that. You should try going to a place where people have to compete over even fewer resources and they have bad infrastructure to boot,(get it, to boot...hehe). But seriously, you can't work if you
Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
Actually, 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires [selfgrowth.com]. I guess there must be an awful lot of people changing their name to Bush or Kennedy, huh? The truth is, a lifetime of hard work will pay off if you are consistent about saving ~15% of your earnings a
Re:Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
Yeah thats Millionaires, how about Billionaires? I thought we were talking about Mr.Gates, Steve Balmer, and those guys.
You can pull a stat out of your ass and it means nothing if its ouut of contex and not combined with facts proving that most rich people earned it.
Sure you can say most millionaires earned it, that could mean people with over 1 million dollars on that list, but what about billionaires, what about people with 100 million + ?
Show me some real stats and not stats you make up to help your
Re:Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
That stat is for people with a net worth of $1M or more, not for people with exactly $1M. Gates and Balmer are included as millionaires.
The stat was neither out of context nor pulled from my ass. Yo
Re:Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
Why should he work hard, if there isn't a chance in the world he'll get rich? Which of course dooms him to failure anyway. Sad really.
Re:Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
Actually I dont WANT to be rich. Why cant you get it through your thick skull that not everyone in this world lives to make money and get rich! Geez.
Re:Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
TANSTAAFL
Re:Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
Re:Actually, that's not correct (Score:1)
Using your capital to earn money is just as valid as using labor. Someone ponying up a billion dollars for a project can get a lot more done that someone giving a couple years labor. And the guy putting up the billion dollars is risking a *hell* of a lot more than the guy getting a paycheck every two weeks.
Re:Finally you see through all the lies! (Score:2)
That, dude, is called optimism. You'll seriously be much happier if you try it sometime. Instead of bitching and complaining that someone has more than you, be happy with what you've got. If ya ain't happy with what ya got now, then you'll never be happy, as there's always going to be something you don't have.
Lighten up, have fun.
Man, that was stupid (Score:2)
For those individuals who made their wealth instead of inheriting it, by definition the wealth they've amassed is the "worth" of their labor (minus investment gains, of course). Whether you like MS or not, they've been a major player in the mass acceptance of PC's, which has led to gigantic productivity gains around the world over the last two decades. And as any economist c
Re:Man, that was stupid (Score:1)
While the original poster was wrong in claiming they had stolen the money, this is also bogus. Chance has a hand in things - much of this wealth was a result of being in the right place at the right time. If I won the World Series of Poker (cash prize of nearly $2 million) would you say that my labors were worth that much? That would be a hard position to defend. Si
Re:Man, that was stupid (Score:2)
In a $10
Re:Man, that was stupid (Score:1)
Precisely. If Bill Gates had been born four years earlier or later, or if Paul Allen had not met Gates, etc., do you think that he would still be worth tens of billions? I will gladly concede that his abilities would have made him a multimillionaire regardless of
Re:Man, that was stupid (Score:1)
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
ALL MONEY IS ARBITRARY.
There, I said it. It is arbitrary. That Bill Gates is worth $55billion is *ONLY* a 'fact' because enough people got together and agreed that is how much he is worth to society, as represented by the one symbol everyone in society knows the meaning for: $
It is sort of stupid to get involved in whether its 'right' or whether its 'wrong' to consider someone so valuable. All money is arbitrary, anyway, and you can't say 'he isnt worth $1,0
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
http://theregister.com/content/28/30679.html [theregister.com]
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
*Anybody* can dig ditches. Very few people can effectivly "risk capital". Hell, less than a third of the households in the US make any serious attempt at investing towards their own freakin' retirement.
How about this analogy? Bob and Sue Doe invested their life savings
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
The obscenely rich get more obscenely rich by investing their money. Those investments creates opportunitys for people who uses the investments to create labor. Though th
Re:What bothers me is dolts. (Score:3, Insightful)
We do. It's a "+5 Insightfull" from other blithering idiots.
Re:What bothers me is dolts. (Score:2)
ROTFLMAO Oh, for mod points right now
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
...
The money was not earned, it was stolen. In most cases, the money was stolen from the shareholders of the corporation in question, who by rights should have either had the money in dividends or seen the money re-invested in the corporate machine.
I don't follow this. The company owners are not worthy of this money because they did not perform that much labor, yet the shareh
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
People who have money will try to put it work where it can get them the most money, just like a worker will go where he gets paid the most.
The genius businessman, who can use money to make money very effectively, will get all sorts of investor money. These people are rare; pro sports player kind of rare.
And obviously, the investors who are better at recognizing the genius businessman make more money
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Creative? Yes. Useful? No. They'd just stuff all their net worth into offshore holding companies. And why 10 million? That's not very much in terms of "wealthy". Does this mean that all lottery pots will be capped a $10M too?
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Definitely an interesting problem which I haven't thought through, though I'm not yet willing to concede that it's impossible to solve.
And why 10 million? That's not very much in terms of "wealthy".
I'm open to other numbers. I picked that number based on a gut feel of what I'd be happy with. My aspirations are perhaps very different from those of some other people; I'd simply like a nice, roomy house in a location of my choosing
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
I take it you don't like the idea. ;)
My proposal was limited as specified because it addresses a specific problem: that of an increasingly small number of people controlling a concentration of wealth so great that it threatens to destabilize society. Create enough unhappy people without solutions and there will be a revolution. Not that I'm entirely opposed to revolution, but it's worthwhile to discuss how to avoid it if possible.
It isn't my intent to advocate regulation in every wa
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
You are wrong because intelligence doesn't scale like that. 1000 ordinary people does not equal one Benjamin Franklin or Leonardo da Vinci or Isaac Newton or Ludwig van nce that one person can do more useful work than "thousands of people". So, your entire argument is based on faulty assumptions.
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Furthe
Nothing was stolen (Score:2)
The fact that they sold out for $80K (or $100K or whatever amount) a year - when they could have made billions - is their problem.
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Yes, but they employ the people who can. You don't understand the non-linear aspects of business.
The money was not earned, it was stolen.
From whom? Did they break into someone's house?
In some cases, the money was stolen from fortunes made by the ideas and productive results of employees of the company.
In exchange for relatively stable employment. There are lots of sm
Re:What bothers me (Score:1)
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Now, hold on one minute! I take issue with this premise. Corporate CEOs and Rich folks are no more or less productive than anyone else - they just have the resources of thousands of workers to actualize their ideas. More often than not, they only enable the ideas of others to advance or not, based on their own business agenda (which mostly means 'what can make the most money in the shortest time with the
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)
Since I don't think that's physically possible (for anyone to do more than 1 order of magnitude more work than an average educated pers
Re:What bothers me (Score:2)