The Greek parents too poor to care for their children

[Recusant]

Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker. . .

Just a point of information. The CEO is being paid 185.269 times more than the worker, which means that the CEO is being paid approximately 18,527% more than the worker, not 185.3% more. This sort of income inequality is absurd, and in my opinion indefensible.

[Sweetdeath]

Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker. . .

Just a point of information. The CEO is being paid 185.269 times more than the worker, which means that the CEO is being paid approximately 18,527% more than the worker, not 185.3% more. This sort of income inequality is absurd, and in my opinion indefensible.

Fuck, that's inexcusable.

[Will37]

How is it hypocritcal to say the wealthy and working class are GROSSLY unbalanced?

Did I say that it is hypocritical to make the correct and obvious observation that there is a great inequality of wealth in most of the world?  Before you expend too much energy on that effort here is a hint: I said no such thing.  What I did say, however, is that it is hypocritical to criticize the wealthy for purchasing luxury relative to their means while the poster, by virtue of her being able to post on an internet forum with her computer, seems to be willing to indulge in luxury relative to her means.  

[Will37]

I'm not defending gross income inequality.  I'm not defending the social stratification that has occurred in many countries, particularly the United States.  But what I do find tedious is when individuals who have yet to sell everything they absolutely do not need and give the proceeds to the poor seem to disdain the rich for failing to meet that very high standard.  There's nothing inherently wrong with an individual owning a private jet.  Who the hell do you think gets paid to build that jet if not the working class?  That's a cheep, shallow form of emotional outrage.  The problem with wealth occurs when the wealthy use their surplus capital to help ossify social mobility and curtail regulations that prevent them from engaging in predatory capitalism et cetera and not for simply buying luxury items. 

[Recusant]

Let me see if I understand your position, Will37. Are you saying that unless somebody lives like a hermit and gives all of their discretionary income to charity, they are in no position to criticize the extravagance of the super-rich?

[Will37]

Let me see if I understand your position, Will37. Are you saying that unless somebody lives like a hermit and gives all of their discretionary income to charity, they are in no position to criticize the extravagance of the super-rich?

The individual in question is, I believe living in a Western country and has enough disposable income to purchase a computer.  They are, therefore, living in fairly obscene luxury relative to large swaths of, for example, Somalia.  So yes, I find it hypocritical to criticize one individual for living in obscene luxury relative to your position while simultaneously living in obscene luxury relative to another person. 

If you want to work to help lift people out of poverty that's a very noble and worthy goal.  But I do find the unreflective, holier-than-thou attitude that so often surrounds so many discussions like this somewhat tiring. 

[Recusant]

This sounds remarkably like a tu quoque fallacy to me, but if it pleases you to criticize others' criticism of society's injustices/inequities in such a manner, I'm not going to say you nay.  

[The Magic Pudding]

Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker (as opposed to 24.2% back in the time period that most people hail as "the good old days.")

I'm not saying that it has to be perfectly even.  I just think that surely it could stand to be a little less uneven.  Surely making even 50% more than the average production worker would be a good incentive to work hard?  It sure would have been back in '65.

You could argue that a worker adds $100,000 value to the company, the CEO adds a billion.  The CEO is moving levers, their actions may determine whether a loss or a profit is made.  There could be a level of hype associated with CEOs, are they really the super beings they promote themselves as?  Some people/companies think by spending more they will get more. "You get what you pay for."  I think you get what you get, you may have to pay more for the best but sellers will still be happy to charge top dollar for crap.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Let me see if I understand your position, Will37. Are you saying that unless somebody lives like a hermit and gives all of their discretionary income to charity, they are in no position to criticize the extravagance of the super-rich?

The individual in question is, I believe living in a Western country and has enough disposable income to purchase a computer.  They are, therefore, living in fairly obscene luxury relative to large swaths of, for example, Somalia.  So yes, I find it hypocritical to criticize one individual for living in obscene luxury relative to your position while simultaneously living in obscene luxury relative to another person. 

If you want to work to help lift people out of poverty that's a very noble and worthy goal.  But I do find the unreflective, holier-than-thou attitude that so often surrounds so many discussions like this somewhat tiring. 

Soooo no one should give a shit about what anyone does?

It's also fair to point out that you don't know Sweetdeath: maybe she does give proportionally more of her income to charity than most CEOs, maybe she has volunteered overseas or betters the world in her own way. I don't think the argument necessarily lies in the amount of money that someone makes, but it's in the philosophy behind money and power dynamics. Mega-rich multi-national CEOS hold a fuck-ton of power over a lot of the world, your average Joe "westerner" doesn't (at least, individually), no matter how relatively "well off" they may be.

I honestly think that high ranking corporate employees have to be at least a little socio-pathic to get where they are and I don't think they're reasonably comparable to an undergrad student living on student loans or a single-parent making minimum wage. Could you really look someone in the eye and say "well, they're all the same thing to someone in Africa"?  

[DeterminedJuliet]

Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker (as opposed to 24.2% back in the time period that most people hail as "the good old days.")

I'm not saying that it has to be perfectly even.  I just think that surely it could stand to be a little less uneven.  Surely making even 50% more than the average production worker would be a good incentive to work hard?  It sure would have been back in '65.

You could argue that a worker adds $100,000 value to the company, the CEO adds a billion.  The CEO is moving levers, their actions may determine whether a loss or a profit is made.  There could be a level of hype associated with CEOs, are they really the super beings they promote themselves as?  Some people/companies think by spending more they will get more. "You get what you pay for."  I think you get what you get, you may have to pay more for the best but sellers will still be happy to charge top dollar for crap.

Yes, but would a CEO be able to add that "billion" without support staff? I work as a Veterinary Receptionist right now - technically speaking the vets "make" most of the money through surgeries and procedures and whatnot. But I can tell you right now that the whole practice would fall apart and they wouldn't be able to make a dime if they didn't have a support staff. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single one of them who actually knows how to take a payment themselves.

[Sweetdeath]

I live in an apt, with just enough food to live off. My grandma and eat lots of sandwhiches and cereal cuz rent is a lot. I pay my own p honebill, and collect change and cans for recycling.
Is this luxury? I aporeciate having food and shelter, but all my clothes are 2nd hand, etc. I hardly call MY living luxurious just cuz,i have a phone and playstation2.

[Ali]

Do you really think that the average CEO in the US is actually 185.3% smarter or works 185.3% harder than the average production worker. . .

Just a point of information. The CEO is being paid 185.269 times more than the worker, which means that the CEO is being paid approximately 18,527% more than the worker, not 185.3% more. This sort of income inequality is absurd, and in my opinion indefensible.

Haha, math.  Not my strong point.  But holy CRAP that is crazy and inexcusable.

[Ali]

How is it hypocritcal to say the wealthy and working class are GROSSLY unbalanced?

Did I say that it is hypocritical to make the correct and obvious observation that there is a great inequality of wealth in most of the world?  Before you expend too much energy on that effort here is a hint: I said no such thing.  What I did say, however, is that it is hypocritical to criticize the wealthy for purchasing luxury relative to their means while the poster, by virtue of her being able to post on an internet forum with her computer, seems to be willing to indulge in luxury relative to her means.  

I don't see how you can separate the issue of the super-rich making that much more money, and the issue of them spending said money on bullshit like jets.  When what they are doing with that money is spending it on ridiculous luxury items, I think it's fair for someone to raise an eyebrow and question why the hell they are making 185,527% more than the average person in the first place.

[Sweetdeath]

On topic: didn't occupy wallstreet start in Greece?

[The Magic Pudding]

Yes, but would a CEO be able to add that "billion" without support staff?

No, I've known more than one PA who claims they've done most of the work their boss gets the big dollars for.

I work as a Veterinary Receptionist right now - technically speaking the vets "make" most of the money through surgeries and procedures and whatnot. But I can tell you right now that the whole practice would fall apart and they wouldn't be able to make a dime if they didn't have a support staff. I'm pretty sure there isn't a single one of them who actually knows how to take a payment themselves.

Vets and customer service people are paid pretty much in line with normal supply and demand principles by their employers.
A person concerned for their horse may pay $1,000 to a vet to have its spark plugs (OK sorry, spark plug equivalents) changed in their horse.  They could have paid a stable girl $100 for the same thing but they want to feel they've done their best for the horses welfare.  Vets do magic stable girls don't know.  Directors of companies are concerned for their company, hot shot CEOs do magic the in-house manager can't, even if he does know the business better.  The decision to pay a vet or a hot shot CEO may not be rational but I'm not sure from what angle to attack it.  Shareholders have a right to complain because its their money being wasted, claims of employees and the public of how another entity should spend their money seems hard to maintain.  I think adjusting the tax rates would make more sense.