Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Minimum Wage Clock

moonbase.lgbt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 278 posts

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#181

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

warner25 wrote: post #111
mlsu wrote: post #66

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!

I wonder a lot about what motivates people at that level, and about how these negotiations go. As someone who has always been a W-2 employee, and who has never had much individual negotiating power, it feels impossible to wrap my head around this. On one hand, if I could get compensation in the hundreds of millions per year, it's tempting to think that I'd "work" for six months and then retire with wealth beyond my w…

I'm assuming it's a selection bias. If the CEO can retire absurdly wealthy in six months, and the VP of whatever can "only" retire in a couple years, then the VP is probably going to retire before they reach the C-suite. The only people left to get promoted to the C-suite are the ones for whom it's a type A lifestyle or something.

Likewise if Zuck had been content selling to google and retiring to an island or wherever, he probably wouldn't have become a name we all still know.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#182

Post by twosdai »

Y-bar wrote: post #119
doesnt_know wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Why not? As a consumer I can choose dinner from either beef from burned amazon rainforest, or a ratatouille made from seasonal local ingredients, or anything in between. I can choose to buy a 2-tonne gas SUV or something smaller. I can choose to participate in “fast fashion”, or choose to buy some of my clothing second-hand. I can choose a vacation by flying to Greece, or hiking the local area, or anywhere in between…

I hear you, and I agree we definitely bear some responsibility for our actions, so it seems fair to question it.

However I really do wonder how much choice we have. Ultimately what I am going to say next comes down to believing the market is actually inefficient and prone to mistakes / manipulation.

While we can buy a gas guzzling car or a smaller greener vehicle, there is a lot of time energy and effort spent to manipulate the perception of the smaller vehicle so that its seen as less attractive to purchase, as well as less attractive to make.

More deeply, I'm not totally convinced that changing an individual to act ethically actually changes the group dynamic or consumption habits. Because by stating we have a responsibility to make ethical choices as a consumer we assume people act rationally all of the time when making purchasing decisions, which really isn't the case otherwise marketing wouldn't be effective. Finally, companies don't really respond to individuals, they respond to groups of people that fit their ideal customer profile. These groups likely have a different set of ethics than us and likely will not change to fit a different world view, at least in aggregate. Individually, sure, but not the whole group.

Maybe more succinctly, I believe there is a real distinction that occurs by looking at group dynamics which cannot be inferred or changed at the individual level and because of that choosing to act ethically as an individual wont ever get the attention of billionaires or massive corporations.

Not trying to be argumentative, I live in the same way you describe, but ultimately I don't think its going to change how apple operates. No matter how many people I tell.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#183

Post by wintogreen74 »

henriquez wrote: post #171
Y-bar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? As a consumer I can choose dinner from either beef from burned amazon rainforest, or a ratatouille made from seasonal local ingredients, or anything in between. I can choose to buy a 2-tonne gas SUV or something smaller. I can choose to participate in “fast fashion”, or choose to buy some of my clothing second-hand. I can choose a vacation by flying to Greece, or hiking the local area, or anywhere in between…

You can “choose” assuming you have disposable income. For people who need cheap clothes, food, etc. there is still a systemic issue of wealth disparity and unjust enrichment. It’s more than any one company, CEO, or consumer purchase and it should be obvious.

Doesn't this imply that there's an entire group of people who are now better off, if they have to choose between (a) the relatively new availability of cheap clothes or food and (b) going without? Previously they went without?

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#184

Post by wintogreen74 »

salawat wrote: post #176
lotsofpulp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't putting this onto the consumer a little bit of a cop out? It is the other way around, consumers wanting to keep consuming and feeling good about it while blaming someone else.

Bullshit, and you know it. I want a computer with completely open schematics, completely open firmware and uCode, GPUs with no ties to the entertainment industry, and processors that don't have baked in "ring -3"s. I want cars I can wrench on, and software I can trust. I want things that are mine first, not the manufacturers. It. Will. Not. Happen. Short of doing it ourselves, because businesses can't spawn around th…

And I think most consumers don't want these things. When given the choice they've consistently taken cost and convenience over openness, privacy or durability.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#185

Post by lotsofpulp »

salawat wrote: post #176
lotsofpulp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't putting this onto the consumer a little bit of a cop out? It is the other way around, consumers wanting to keep consuming and feeling good about it while blaming someone else.

Bullshit, and you know it. I want a computer with completely open schematics, completely open firmware and uCode, GPUs with no ties to the entertainment industry, and processors that don't have baked in "ring -3"s. I want cars I can wrench on, and software I can trust. I want things that are mine first, not the manufacturers. It. Will. Not. Happen. Short of doing it ourselves, because businesses can't spawn around th…

The original post states they choose to purchase Apple products instead of System76, and they choose to purchase from Costco instead of farmers markets.

You might want certain things, but that does not mean you can afford to pay the price that would be sufficient to serve the market (since there would be so few like you). Consumers, as a group, will most likely choose price and getting the job done quickly.

Also, some things in life might just be so technically advanced that you will not find all the optionality you want.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#186

Post by GuB-42 »

Instead of CEOs, I think it would be more interesting to compare it to, say median wage, and the first decile.

We know that top CEOs make a lot of money, but it is not really relatable. But if you are a software engineer for instance, seeing how much faster your own clock ticks compared to minimum wage could be interesting. We probably all know some minimum wage, median and 1st decile workers personally. We are less familiar with top CEOs.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#187

Post by Nevermark »

I do believe that inequality like these clocks demonstrate, heavily reflects inequity (a lack of fairness).

But the only people "harmed" by a CEO's high pay are the workers of the same company, since they are the one's with a "zero sum" split of the company's revenue. (I.e. the money split between all employees (as expenses) and shareholder profits).

Lack of fairness, to me, mostly starts with inequitable health, education at an early age, and parents in survival mode.

I don't think fixing the last is as easy as increasing minimum wage, given that adds even more incentives to replace workers with automation. But the planet has untapped resources, not there due to any human investment or effort, whose raw value would go a long way toward lifting many people out of poverty, if that value was shared. (And without taking anything from the value created by those who extract and transform those resources.)

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#188

Post by scottyah »

EnigmaFlare wrote: post #136
NegativeLatency wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if any singular ultra wealthy person is doing nice things, you'll still have bad actors like the Koch brothers who are actively trying (and succeeding) to subvert our government systems to their own benefit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Ko... Which is why we need governmental solutions, laws, taxes, etc and can't rely on just good will. I havent read the book you recomended, but I wi…

That's just political campaigning, isn't it? How is that "subverting" or "bad actors"?

Because they're the bad guys

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#189

Post by AnthonyMouse »

henriquez wrote: post #171
Y-bar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? As a consumer I can choose dinner from either beef from burned amazon rainforest, or a ratatouille made from seasonal local ingredients, or anything in between. I can choose to buy a 2-tonne gas SUV or something smaller. I can choose to participate in “fast fashion”, or choose to buy some of my clothing second-hand. I can choose a vacation by flying to Greece, or hiking the local area, or anywhere in between…

You can “choose” assuming you have disposable income. For people who need cheap clothes, food, etc. there is still a systemic issue of wealth disparity and unjust enrichment. It’s more than any one company, CEO, or consumer purchase and it should be obvious.

In many cases the choice goes the other way. Are you saving money by replacing your computer a year sooner or participating in fast fashion instead of buying second hand clothes? Even if you're cash constrained and fast fashion is not an option, you still have the choice between Walmart and Goodwill.

And generally the people propping up these organizations are the people with disposable income because they're the ones who can pay the margins that keep the companies rich. If you can afford a new Macbook, you can afford something from Framework. The person without a choice is buying something used from eBay or doesn't have a laptop at all.

Re: Minimum Wage Clock

#190

Post by gruez »

digging wrote: post #172
gruez wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>that dollars spent there generate more wealth for the local economy, as they're not extracted to offshore bank accounts This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from other economies. >2) that there can be more accountability to and involvement with the community served. Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to and involvement" to f…

> This is only one side of the equation. Globalization also means the local economy is also "extracting" wealth from other economies. ... more than large corporations do? Nonsense > Yeah, like car dealerships using their "accountability to and involvement" to forcibly insert themselves in the value chain? I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, b…

>... more than large corporations do? Nonsense

Corporations aren't some entities from another dimension. Their earnings must ultimately go to someone. For the global economy as a whole, all the "extraction" that's happening ultimately net out to zero.

>I would suggest you reread the sentence you quoted and then go ahead and finish reading the rest of my comment, because this sounds like an argumentative retort but I don't think you understood what you're replying to.

I suggest you do the same. I was simply pointing out the dark side of the dynamic you described. Yes, car dealerships are pillars of many communities. They sponsor local clubs/sporting teams and local politicians. However, all that "involvement" means they wield enormous political power, to the extent that they're able to lobby state representatives to forcibly add themselves to the automotive value chain. Whether that's better for the consumer, and the local community as a whole is questionable. After all, they're getting the money from the local community, and if their services aren't needed (why do you have to go through a dealership rather than ordering through a web app?) then they're ultimately leeches and a net negative for the community.

Post reply on HN