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

Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

review.chicagobooth.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#191

Post by mercutio2 »

tracer4201 wrote: post #141
jogjayr wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> charging lower tax rates on capital gains than ordinary income I don't have a problem with the idea. It recognizes that income derived from investments is riskier than income from a paycheck, and applies a discount. The problem is with the execution. Why is the top rate for cap gains only 20% - even if you earn $10b, but 37% for a mere $510k in ordinary income? Surely there should be some amount of cap gains that c…

Working for someone, even at a FAANG, inherently also has risks. You don’t know the manager, the org, the team, etc when you first join. You have some ideas about the culture perhaps, but we take risks in our careers all the time. The argument that one is riskier than the other and therefore entitled to lower tax rates doesn’t make sense to me. Sure, investing in an asset might be riskier if you’re randomly throwing…

Off-topic: Why would you wait a year to sell your RSUs?

You already pay income tax on the RSUs when they vest. If you sell them immediately, you’ll have a de minimis capital gain or loss.

Unless you actually would have turned around and bought your company’s stock with a bonus, you should really just sell immediately and ignore the trivial capital gain (or loss).

For ESPP it can make sense to hold, but even then, only if there was a huge increase in value since the beginning of the holding period, so perhaps that’s what you meant (but ESPP is capped at a very low amount, so that would be a tiny portion of your hundreds of thousands in RSUs).

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#192

Post by anoncake »

stale2002 wrote: post #165
mistermann wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes. That is because of of the impact of their actions. If you consider a measurement of their financial compensation to be proportional to their contribution to society. In reality, the actual impact of their actions is unknown - such things are beyond our ability to measure, we can only speculate. > therefore this value needs to be incentivized Technically, it doesn't need to be incentivized. Life would carry on…

> such things are beyond our ability to measure, we can only speculate. Ok then. But that doesn't support the argument that compensation is too high. Maybe it isn't high enough, and should be even higher! I can use your unknown argument to support even higher compensation, just as much.

You cannot use someone's output to justify their compensation at all since you cannot measure it.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#193

Post by mistermann »

stale2002 wrote: post #181
mistermann wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ok then. But that doesn't support the argument that compensation is too high That is true, but I made no argument. You on the other hand, seemed to be explaining that such arguments are wrong, at least as I understood you. > I can use your unknown argument to support even higher compensation, just as much. Just as much, which is precisely zero. You seem to be claiming that they are producing value, that needs to be…

No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims. I don't need to make any claims, if you aren't going to make any, because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo. The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the curre…

>> You seem to be claiming that they are producing value, that needs to be compensated. You have no evidence, yet you speak as if you do.

> No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification.

I'm confused.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671403

>> Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to society at a rate hundreds or thousands of times higher than the rest of the people?

> (you) Yes. That is because of of the impact of their actions.

Any chance you could clear up my confusion?

You answered "yes" to the question "Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to society at a rate hundreds or thousands of times higher than the rest of the people?", and yet now you seem to be claiming that you have not asserted that they are producing disproportionate value.

> And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims.

They are still claims.

> I don't need to make any claims

But you did.

> ... because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo.

Then you should have done that, rather than falsely claiming you did it after the fact.

> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line.

True. It is also true that you have a burden of claim, because you also made an assertion.

And so on and so forth.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#194

Post by [deleted] »

mistermann wrote: post #193
stale2002 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims. I don't need to make any claims, if you aren't going to make any, because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo. The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the curre…

>> You seem to be claiming that they are producing value, that needs to be compensated. You have no evidence, yet you speak as if you do. > No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. I'm confused. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671403 >> Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to…

[deleted]

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#195

Post by [deleted] »

anoncake wrote: post #192
stale2002 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> such things are beyond our ability to measure, we can only speculate. Ok then. But that doesn't support the argument that compensation is too high. Maybe it isn't high enough, and should be even higher! I can use your unknown argument to support even higher compensation, just as much.

You cannot use someone's output to justify their compensation at all since you cannot measure it.

[deleted]

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#196

Post by [deleted] »

mistermann wrote: post #193
stale2002 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims. I don't need to make any claims, if you aren't going to make any, because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo. The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the curre…

>> You seem to be claiming that they are producing value, that needs to be compensated. You have no evidence, yet you speak as if you do. > No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. I'm confused. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671403 >> Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to…

[deleted]

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#197

Post by stale2002 »

mistermann wrote: post #193
stale2002 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims. I don't need to make any claims, if you aren't going to make any, because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo. The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the curre…

>> You seem to be claiming that they are producing value, that needs to be compensated. You have no evidence, yet you speak as if you do. > No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. I'm confused. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671403 >> Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to…

>

"> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line.

True."

Awesome! So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. (And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we can show any evidence, on anything, or something?)

That is the main point that I am trying to make and is the only claim that I really care about. The people who said this, have not proven their statements, and you seem to agree that they have not established their claims, great!

And I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement on the main thing I was trying to explain which is that the people saying this have not proven their statements to be true. :)

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#198

Post by mistermann »

stale2002 wrote: post #197
mistermann wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> You seem to be claiming that they are producing value, that needs to be compensated. You have no evidence, yet you speak as if you do. > No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification. I'm confused. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21671403 >> Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to…

> "> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line. True." Awesome! So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. (And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we…

> So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this.

Well, not really.

As I said before: "If you consider a measurement of their financial compensation to be proportional to their contribution to society. In reality, the actual impact of their actions is unknown - such things are beyond our ability to measure, we can only speculate."

There is no proof either way that we should or should not be "worrying about this". Whether we should be worrying about this is for voters to decide. Well, assuming Democracy wasn't a complete facade that is. In lieu of Democracy, about all individuals can do is bitch and moan, and hope the conversation makes it into mainstream discourse, and perhaps something might be done out of shame or fear.

> And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we can show any evidence, on anything, or something?

It can rarely be demonstrated with any sort of accuracy what any one individual contributes to society.

> That is the main point that I am trying to make and is the only claim that I really care about.

This is dishonest revisionism - you made several specific points. If you'd like, you can admit that outright, or you can continue to write in a disingenuous manner. Up to you.

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#199

Post by stale2002 »

mistermann wrote: post #198
stale2002 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line. True." Awesome! So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. (And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we…

> So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. Well, not really. As I said before: "If you consider a measurement of their financial compensation to be proportional to their contribution to society. In reality, the actual impact of their actions is unknown - such things ar…

> There is no proof either way

Cool. So you agree that it has not been established, with any substantiated facts, that CEOs are overpaid. So we agree on this point. Awesome!

I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement on this point! Thank you for the good conversation, and have a nice day!

Re: Never mind the 1 percent Let's talk about the 0.01 percent (2017)

#200

Post by mistermann »

stale2002 wrote: post #199
mistermann wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. Well, not really. As I said before: "If you consider a measurement of their financial compensation to be proportional to their contribution to society. In reality, the actual impact of their actions is unknown - such things ar…

> There is no proof either way Cool. So you agree that it has not been established, with any substantiated facts, that CEOs are overpaid. So we agree on this point. Awesome! I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement on this point! Thank you for the good conversation, and have a nice day!

Shall I take this as a withdrawal of your earlier assertions?
Post reply on HN