161–170 of 278 posts
People like to talk about inequality but absolute poverty seems like a more important target. Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life worse; I'm more concerned about the availability of jobs, food, housing, etc. That said, CEO salary does strike me as strange. Who needs 8 million per year + stock? I'd think more CEOs would voluntarily take a pay cut.
This is very not true since many (most) things we spend money on are in limited supply. I can make what I think is good money, but if remote FAANG workers decide to settle nearby then I suddenly can't afford a house. Same for automobiles after COVID, meat at the market, etc.
Also, at least in the USA, money is efficiently convertible to and from political power. So outsized wealth translates into outsized political power. Satya Nadella having far more money than I means he also has far more political clout than I have.
The most remarkable thing to me about this to me isn't necessarily the disparity between CEO and min wage (I already knew it was crazy). Instead, it's the differences between CEO compensation. Sundar is making $300 to Satya's $65? what? I know it's an estimate and the numbers are made up at that level but still!
Elon Musk to Mark Zuckerberg is bigger than the difference between Mark Zuckerberg to the average US worker.
To be fair, Mark Zuckerberg does probably make more money from the appreciation of their existing stock rather than their new compensation. David Zaslav, the second lowest listed on the website does ~630x the average worker and Elon Musk makes ~320x David Zaslav.
The average S&P 500 CEO does ~270x the average worker and ~1110x the minimum wage. Elon Musk makes ~750x the average S&P 500 CEO. Elon Musk makes the average S&P 500 CEO look proportionally poorer than the average worker and almost makes enough to make the average S&P 500 CEO look like a minimum wage worker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm ok with people working hard and getting paid for it. I'm not ok with those people using their money against me in any way, which is what still happens and nobody talks about.
> I'm ok with people working hard and getting paid for it Is that an accurate description of CEOs worth billions of dollars though? How hard are they supposedly working? I'm probably lazier than most of them as an IC with disabilities and non-work interests... but it's not humanly possible that they get ~40,000 times as much done in a day as I do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the rich get rich via redistribution of value rather than generation of value, average richness rises after those rich are deposed.
What examples are there of that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want that and you aren't producing enough value to warrant it, why should someone else pay for it? Find some more valuable work to do, work harder In the UK you'll get benefits to top up your wage anyway.
Someone has to collect the garbage, clean public restrooms, produce our food, etc. We can't all be CEOs. Society depends on these "lowly" jobs. If the three jobs above ceased to exist we'd all be in trouble. They're all important enough to warrant a dignity wage. In first grade we all learn that food, shelter, and water are the most basic living requirements. Add standard-of-living necessities such as internet, educa…
This feels like a variant of "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded". If there was some critical job that's going unfilled, the offering price will go up and up until someone bites, ensuring it will be filled.
People like to talk about inequality but absolute poverty seems like a more important target. Satya Nadella having more money than me doesn't make my life worse; I'm more concerned about the availability of jobs, food, housing, etc. That said, CEO salary does strike me as strange. Who needs 8 million per year + stock? I'd think more CEOs would voluntarily take a pay cut.
That is simply not true. Money is not an absolut good, but relative. When a few people own a large portion of money, that affords them the power to decide what people do and usually makes their life worse.
If we find this appalling, let's stop consuming the products of those who we feel are "overpaid" and visit the website, businessplace, or other endeavors of those we feel are "underpaid". Tim Cook gets paid a lot (and so do many AAPL employees), but I can't help but admit that my last 3 laptops I bought with my own cash were MBP, and not a system76 or framework. And I'm more likely to visit costco than a farmer's mar…
Isn't putting this onto the consumer a little bit of a cop out? This enormous global system of powerful corporations and nation states crafted this system because it was in their best interest. Feels sort of tone deaf to say "well, you got what you deserved, you created this sytem by buying this specific computer and cheaper food!" Night/farmer's markets are quite popular here in NZ but we haven't toppled global inqu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the case of most US states, I think it's fair to say that the minimum wage is moot. As you say, hardly anyone would consider working for less than that anyway. But why take away their freedom to do so?
Well I think for one there is a power imbalance between employees and employers that seems primed for abuse without some regulatory minimum. Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty? Having them work for less may increase employment figures but they'll still be in poverty. The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty [1…
If some employer is currently paying e.g. $10/hour when the minimum wage is $7.25/hour, why would that change if the minimum wage were $5/hour or $0?
If anything they might have to pay more, because the employee might prefer a job paying $5/hour to one that pays $10/hour but incurs $6/hour worth of commuting expense and then the original employer would have to pay $11/hour to retain them.
> Also is the goal to maximize the number in the workflow, or get people out of poverty?
These are not unrelated goals. Generally people who can't find work end up in poverty.
> The minimum wage has shown to decrease employment but also lift the people employed out of poverty
You don't need a study for this, it's exactly what you would expect to happen. If you raise the minimum wage to $10, some jobs that pay $9 are still sustainable at $10, so those pay $10, some aren't, so those people lose their jobs. The proportionality of each one is going to depend on current economic conditions and not be a universal constant.
But the part where you cause people to lose their jobs is bad -- in some cases it will exceed the entire benefit of the remaining people getting paid more, but either way what it's competing with isn't placebo, it's alternative policies to get people out of poverty. Why would you do the one that causes people to lose their jobs when there are several alternatives that don't?
If we find this appalling, let's stop consuming the products of those who we feel are "overpaid" and visit the website, businessplace, or other endeavors of those we feel are "underpaid". Tim Cook gets paid a lot (and so do many AAPL employees), but I can't help but admit that my last 3 laptops I bought with my own cash were MBP, and not a system76 or framework. And I'm more likely to visit costco than a farmer's mar…
At first blush that may sound bizarre, as there are a lot more consumers than providers. But from an individual company’s PoV that may be reversed: internal decisions are easier to make than customer-responsive ones, especially as the number of customers goes up. This is why we have things like food safety regulations.