Wealth & Income Inequality
- Thread starter Eboue
- Start date
I don't know about Dick Fuld so not going to try like I do but there's a valid explanation to why CEO's earn so much compared to workers. I'm a worker myself and my CEO earns 100 times as much as me and the simple reason is because that CEO creates the profits for us for all of us to have this job in the first place.
Have you heard of bad CEO's? They come in, make shit decisions and millions and millions lose their jobs. A top CEO can generate an extra 15 million for their company. If you are making 15 million more for your company you sure as hell can take 2 million from it and keep making that profit.
There's a reason CEO's earn the amount they earn. It's a really difficult job and only the best of the best can cut it in most cases. When they can't, the company gets ruined. You can't complain about Pogba making millions when the United groundsman makes only a percent of that.
we should listen to the economists who all famously agree with each other
No, its not an emotional thing. Company profits going to executives has skyrocketed, and profits going towards normal employee wages is relatively stagnant. Yes, that has a relationship to most people's ability to gather wealth.
Jesus christ, have you ever actually read a history book, or looked at wealth distribution before the 80's? No its not normal for those at the top to be making hundreds of times the sums that those lower in the company make, that is not what used to happen and the fact you think it would kill business is laughable. You think a CEO only making a million instead of 20 million (and that other 19 million paying for wage increases for the employees) would suddenly make businesses stop existing? Why exactly?
I wasn't using those examples to make a point about how someone earned their money, it's that this idea of a maximum earnings cap is prejudiced against certain kinds of high margin innovative businesses.
As far as I'm concerned mate, if the worst thing you can blame a company for is providing a product that people want, I'm not bothered. It's like hating prostitutes for providing a high demand service.
It goes both ways though. I agree with you. There is this capitalism fetish here in the States and it has it's problems (major, major problems) and people get defensive with the "you want socialism" thing but it goes both ways. A lot of people have capitalism out as pure evil with no benefit and a complete disgrace.
Goes back to my point that these issues are very nuanced. Top economists and experts who spend years studying this don't agree with ease. How can we think we know the proper answers.
Funny how they used to do exactly the same job for only a fraction of the wages, and nobody seemed to have a problem with it.
You're arguing something else. My point is not that CEOs shouldn't earn more money than the average worker. My point (and research supports it) is that the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has drastically increased. And that's shitty.
I don't know why or what the reason for that would be but I'm just thinking at the end of the day in the coorperate world, salaries are determined by supply and demand. I mean, I agree with your last sentence that "It's shitty" but what would be the solution? That's a more complex answer.
I'm referring to posts like this.
The other 99% can raise 32 244 3000 if they donate just 1 dollar. That's 32 million. People bitch about the rich but we're all the fecking same.
Cool dude. 32 million. Jeff Bezos made 215 million every single day last year.
I believe that's a different subject. It's related but the CEO themselves aren't responsible for that. Each CEO is going to care about their company/making their own profits. My educated guess is the flow of wealth as to why the top is getting much richer and there is disparity (if there is research that proves this which I think there is) isn't in the hand of the ceos but the economic structure.
I don't feel that any tax above 50% of income is fair, even as a top marginal rate.
I think there's a lot wrong with executive compensation, in Finance and elsewhere. But I don't think it needs legislation, because I think its to the detriment of the companies themselves to overpay. They're already incented to make the right decision. I don't believe we can legislate away bad decisions.
I think there's a lot wrong with executive compensation, in Finance and elsewhere. But I don't think it needs legislation, because I think its to the detriment of the companies themselves to overpay. They're already incented to make the right decision. I don't believe we can legislate away bad decisions.
Corporations were smaller and far less profitable before the 80s. So necessarily, CEOs earned less. CEOs aren't taking a larger portion of earnings, it's that corporations have gotten bigger and more profitable in general, so the key decision makers earn more.
I know we like to think about how great the average worker is here, but by and large he/she isn't contributing more than they were in the 80s to the success of a company, so why should they expect pay rises similar to a CEO, who's decisions can be the making or breaking of the organisation?
yes that's why we don't have health and safety regulation because given the choice between making a dollar and killing people corporations are famous for always choosing life
let's just put some people who read books in a room and tell them to pull the finger out!
They're making more profit because they are paying workers less. They arent generating more productivity, they're just taking more of the fruits of it.
If a rich person earning more has no correlation to another person earning more or less, why are we arguing here. There are trillions more waiting to be made if a person has the capability.
Calculate how much each employee of Amazon made and some it up. (if you're gonna make simple arguments it can go both ways). Not to mention, calculate the amount of small businesses that have spun out of AWS.
Forget small businesses, I work at a company where because of using AWS we were able to save millions and millions of dollars. A lot of that money went into research on how to improve systems that would improve lives for everyday people. A lot of the money saved helped smaller business owners pay for insurance with that money.
The impact of AWS has no doubt saved billions in costs and provided way more in benefit. 215 million each day is piss froth in terms of the overall benefit Bezos has created for thousands of people, companies and the advancement of technology in general.
You're just taking the piss now or you aren't aware of how modern companies (tech mainly) have revolutionized productivity, which is fine but just admit it.
seriously how the feck do you work in a bank when you don't seem to understand A) inflation and B) distribution of resources
Why not? If you make enough money to easily get around even when paying over 50%, what's wrong with more than 50% going to people who don't have anything?
I think the fact that some people are born with a silver stick up their arse which means they're basically set for life whereas others are born into poverty with virtually no chance at any kind off material wealth is a lot more unfair.
Ffs, your point was on taxes and I replied to that. Buzzword or not, the point remains. Wealth cap is a achievable goal only if everyone accepts it. Else its not just useless but downright bad.
Calculate what every employee made? Why? Why would you compare one person to thousands?
Also Jeff Bezos didn't create amazon web services. Workers did. Jeff Bezos was too busy cheating on his wife and eating iguanas.
That the very broad concept of 'a bank' has been useful at some points in history is not a valid reason to support the smorgasbord of financial services, financial deregulation and cash grabs from the excessive greed from the savings and loan scandals of the 80s to the financial products created by the FSMA and CFMA to high frequency traders to all the deregulations and rules that heavily favor the finance sector at the expense of workers and consumers.
That banks might be necessary in some form is not valid justification for the tonnes of corrupt policies and wealth distribution implemented by the unparalleled greed of Wall Street market fundamentalists over the last 40 years.
Because its downright stupid to blame billionaires for those.
Makes sense given that they went from Arkansas Governor and his lawyer wife to ex POTUS on the global speaking circuit.
It is just clear to me that you have no clue what you are talking about as this may not be your field. Don't wanna be rude, I'm clueless about a shit ton of things myself but this is kind of my field. AWS would not be there without Bezos. At all.
it's downright stupid to think there's enough money for everyone to hoard it
Unfortunately I think a lot of people on here are just regurgitating social media posts about wealth inequality without coorperate experience. It's a serious problem and stuff needs to be fixed but blaming the rich for everything and that big CEO's are all just rich because they are feeding of the workers is absolutely ridiculous.
I wish people opened their eyes more as they wouldn't be left as frustrated.
Ifc, banking has become more complex since olden days abs it's necessary. The scandals are a unnecessary excess that needs to be weeded out of the industry. But saying 'we don't need bankers' is naive and simplistic.
Bezos wouldn't be there if his parents didn't have 300 grand lying about and his contacts in wall street didn't invest him their friend over other online markets from the early 90s
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Most people who work in banks are just as stupid as the rest of us.
Btw, everything aside Ben Shapiro is an idiot.
he is, he's really fecking stupid, and his irony still went over your head
In some cases yes, but in most, no. As I said above, businesses don't exist to give employees loads of money. If you time and effort are worth so much in the labour market, that's what you'll get.
Which is exactly why some sectors should not be allowed to have for-profit entities because the goal of maximizing accumulation of wealth goes directly against the goal of certain sectors like health care.
Clearly they were smarter than you, in that they opted to work at a bank.