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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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: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:3, Insightful)
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: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: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
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: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 is dolts. (Score:3, Insightful)
We do. It's a "+5 Insightfull" from other blithering idiots.