[smoothy]

The people that complain about obscene wealth. (when its actually earned... not like certain heads of state in the world) tend to feel they are entitled to more than they have earned. Most of the same people don't want to work as hard or take the same risks to get ahead. Some just aren't smart enough or good enough at what they do to make more...

It all boils down to envy... much more than greed...

Funny how the same people that think CEO's are overpaid... (who actually do work hard for it because I know a couple really well) think nothing about what certain actors or athletes get paid. That's where obscene actually applies.

[paraclete]

\


The underlying presumption of this OP is that governments are better at distributing people's money that the people are . Under that presumption the "obscene rich" are subject to confiscation as punishment for their success.

Wrong. The underlying assumption of this OP is that the wealth of the world is concentrated in too few hands. If you follow this through you find that, rather than more people becoming wealthy as has been suggested, what is happening is wealth is being concentrated in a smaller percentage of the population. As a result of this the robber barons of the world are being able to avoid contributing through tax havens and manipulations while the actual burden of taxation falls on the 99%. This is obscene that those with less resources should finance government while those who benefit the most don't.

No one wants to punish the rich but the attitude you display tells us that those who have the wealth do not freely contribute. Taxation is not punishment for being wealthy or for earning income, it is the other side of the coin of democracy

[paraclete]

Funny how the same people that think CEO's are overpaid... (who actually do work hard for it because I know a couple really well) think nothing about what certain actors or athletes get paid. That's where obscene actually applies.

The entertainment industry is full of obscenities and nothing more than inflated incomes paid to a few, but the whole spectrum of reward is messed up if you think that you should be paid millions for sitting behind a desk while there are people in the organisation who barely earn enough to live above the poverty line or that the organisation makes money by exploiting labour in third world countries.

[smoothy]

The entertainment industry is full of obscenities and nothing more than inflated incomes paid to a few, but the whole spectrum of reward is messed up if you think that you should be paid millions for sitting behind a desk while there are people in the organization who barely earn enough to live above the poverty line or that the organization makes money by exploiting labor in third world countries.

I can't speak for all CEO's. The couple I know are where they are because they were really good at what they do. One built his business up from nothing (known him over 15 years)... one of the others is a very large corporation in the energy sector, and I do know how much he makes from his own mouth, Know his family and have been to his house a few times... and he is a really intelligent guy who is really, really good at his job. Which does take significantly more knowledge than the average minion that only has a fairly few simple tasks to worry about doing right. These were the two I knew best the other couple I don't know nearly as well.

And as I've said before... if someone doesn't like what they are being paid... all they have to do is look someplace else... if they really are any good at what they do... then someone is willing to pay them more so they have better employees as better employees bring more value to the business. There are far too many people out there that are only willing to do just enough... or only what is required. The people willing to do more, and be better than the next guy are the people that get ahead, those are the people employers are willing to pay more for... and to keep. Those are the people that get ahead.. those are the people that in time... get the better wages. And people working minimum wage jobs more than their first year or two in the job market... are either lazy or dumb as stumps, because plenty of better opportunities exist out there.

As far as third world countries... people jump for those jobs... if they were so awful, why don't they go to the better jobs, maybe because these "awful jobs" are better than anything else they have... its not North Korea where you are told work or die... you aren't even forced to work for them in China... they can leave whenever they want to go work someplace else.

I can tell you the wages are commensurate with the cost of living in that area... you can't compare wages in a third world country directly to Wages in Melbourne, Sydney, NYC or Washington DC.

Because prevailing wages paid won't even be the same within our own countries between lower and higher cost areas.


Plus there are a lot of really dumb people out there....that would have trouble putting a stamp on the right corner and side of an envelope time after time. If you can train a monkey to do a job in 20 minutes....its not worth much money. because then jobs that actually do require more skill and experience then become more valuable by comparison...and pretty soon you have hyper inflation...

Because someone working a minimum wage job...is NOT worth the same pay as someone who does have learned skills and experience you can't train anyone with a heartbeat to do in ten years much less ten minutes.

I didn't spend ten years paying off my student loads after attending college to get paid the same as some idiot that can't do what I do that never had a job before.

And I certainly wouldn't do the job I do now for the same pay as someone 21 years old wet behind the ears...not that its an option...because none exist that could do it...because nobody except a fool would be willing to work harder for the same money as someone that can't do 10% of what you do gets paid.

CEO's are worth significantly more then the average drone. Doctors are worth more than a newspaper delivery person...and people with more highly skilled jobs are worth more than unskilled workers.

People with "practical" Knowledge, Intelligence and specialized skills are always worth more than those lacking it. And Practical is key here, example being a PHD in Philosophy doesn't make you worth more than an experienced gardener for anything but a job as a philosophy teacher.

[paraclete]

.

I can tell you the wages are commensurate with the cost of living in that area... you can't compare wages in a third world country directly to Wages in Melbourne, Sydney, NYC or Washington DC.

Because prevailing wages paid won't even be the same within our own countries between lower and higher cost areas.


.

Very few americans realise what you just said, that you cannot make comparisons between countries on the level of wages paid because cost structures differ, they think that if you can get a worker in the US for $5 an hour that is all the rest of us should be paid. They don't realise that a $200,000 house in the US costs $1 million in Sydney You can buy a lot for Y5 in China but little anywhere else all of which has nothing to do with someone being paid millions to sit behind a desk. What I think is the lowest worker should be paid a fraction of the CEO salary and that should be a fair fraction so that the CEO isn't paid 1000 times what that worker is paid. Entry level should be 10%, skilled level 25%, executive level 50%, senior level 75% and so on. You might think this is what actually happens but very rarely. If the organisation has a good year the salary levels of everyone don't rise

[smoothy]

The problem with that even is that entry level worker usually does only 10% of the work of their manager, and maybe 1% of what a senior executive does. They also for the most part, don't have the same level of accountability.

Sure some people get off on the power and would do it for that alone.. most people take on the extra work for the commensurately bigger pay. Why take a promotion and do twice the work for a 10% increase in pay... few people would.

I wouldn't take a promotion to be a manager at this point. Why, because on my job.. they do have significantly more work, and far more accountability (and its not like I don't have a lot as it is) but they don't get paid all that much more comparatively speaking.

[paraclete]

The problem with that even is that entry level worker usually does only 10% of the work of their manager, and maybe 1% of what a senior executive does. They also for the most part, don't have the same level of accountability.

Sure some people get off on the power and would do it for that alone.. most people take on the extra work for the commensurately bigger pay. Why take a promotion and do twice the work for a 10% increase in pay... few people would.

I wouldn't take a promotion to be a manager at this point. Why, because on my job.. they do have significantly more work, and far more accountability (and its not like I don't have a lot as it is) but they don't get paid all that much more comparatively speaking.

What I'm talking about here is the essential worth of a person, if you adequately reward people ,not according to some arbitrary value placed on their position, but on the worth of the organisation then you give them incentive. The CEO only achieves what he does because of those who execute the decisions, without them he can only accomplish a small fraction of what must be done, so you pay well and fire the drones.

[talaniman]

We've talked about the Walmart business model before, Clete. OBSCENE for sure.

[smoothy]

What I'm talking about here is the essential worth of a person, if you adequately reward people ,not according to some arbitrary value placed on their position, but on the worth of the organization then you give them incentive. The CEO only achieves what he does because of those who execute the decisions, without them he can only accomplish a small fraction of what must be done, so you pay well and fire the drones.

CEO's play a much bigger part in corporate decisions and direction than you are giving them credit for. Without someone who understands the business they are in... and has the knowledge and experience in charge to make the right decisions the Organization is doomed to fail... and do it rather quickly.

Its easy for people to play armchair Quarterback while watching replays of the game they just watched. A large part of their job is anticipating where things are going and making the right choices to get there. No business can be a success playing catch up.

The average drone can't plan the next weeks meals.. much less understand the field of business and understand the direction things appear to be heading.

There are a LOT of business that have failed and gone bankrupt because the wrong decisions were made or they were trying to follow the lead rather than setting the pace. Your average drone might think things are static but the further up a corporate ladder you get the more you find they are anything but constant or guaranteed.

Drone have an over-inflated sense of worth to the business. The lower they are on the corporate ladder they are the less skilled overall they are, outside of one simple task they do...drones are easily replaced...the further up the ladder you get the more experienced in many fascists of the business you tend to be are and the more value you have have to that business.

I am not a manager or higher...but I am bumping up against it. I'm close enough to have intimate knowledge of what the manager does...in fact..at my last job, half of what I did would have been the managers responsibility if we actually had one locally....those were delegated to me by my last several managers because I was the senior and most experienced guy there...and in the case of my last manager...he was basically no knowledgeable on my groups job functions and historic responsibility, because it eclipsed his own groups in scope. Part of it was due to having very different contracts and job descriptions. The work my group did was actually split between three different groups on his side.

The advantage that gave me was a chance to see the business from a different perspective...and have direct working experience with other managers and directors and people I normally would not have ever dealt with directly (over more than a year on that part because people at my level generally didn't work with them or the related stuff we were doing at that point) and 5 years on the other lesser stuff,. And that gave me the opportunity to show them what I could do... I might not have managed to get into my current job if it wasn't for that when they shut down my old office and consolidated operations. Because the move I made was anything but lateral, and normally wouldn't have been open to someone in my old position.

I'm a long way from a CEO's level...and far closer to the drones level...but its a good example of how a drone doesn't have the value people not a whole lot further up the latter are...that have a lot of very specialized experience..that takes decades in the field to learn. People new or with just a few years experience are easy to replace....people where I am are far more difficult to replace...and yet...my level is still far from indispensable. Layoffs still happen with shocking regularity.

Fact is...business is so competitive...nobody is indispensable. Not even the CEO....just that some people have far less value and are easier to replace than others.

Drones that think they are worth so much...should open their own business, call their own shots...find out how little they really know in many cases, most will fail because they don't know that much, and aren't nearly as good as they thought they thought they were ....but a few will overcome and succeed. All of them will develop a much more reasonable perspective of their value and self worth.

[paraclete]

So that's what the question is. Thanks for clarifying. The one word answer is "opportunity." Any attempt to "give" anything else to people puts one in mind of the signs in the wildlife parks that say not to feed the wildlife lest it become dependent and incapable of providing for itself.

Smoothy the problem is opportunity is not being created, when opportunity was created in China at the expense of western economies and western employment, millions were lifted and many became millionaires but overall the statistic declined to 1% having 99% of the wealth so it isn't just opportunity. There were programs of discrimination to lift certain minorities and some have been lifted but not enough to have real impact. My own nation has been engaged in a program of intervention so that a specific minority might have opportunity at equivalent levels to the other 95% of the population. It doesn't seem to have made significant difference. The gap has not been closed. No, I think the word is initiative, I think it is lacking and I think the problem is education

[smoothy]

Smoothy the problem is opportunity is not being created, when opportunity was created in China at the expense of western economies and western employment, millions were lifted and many became millionaires but overall the statistic declined to 1% having 99% of the wealth so it isn't just opportunity. There were programs of discrimination to lift certain minorities and some have been lifted but not enough to have real impact. My own nation has been engaged in a program of intervention so that a specific minority might have opportunity at equivalent levels to the other 95% of the population. It doesn't seem to have made significant difference. The gap has not been closed. No, I think the word is initiative, I think it is lacking and I think the problem is education

I can't comment on education in Australia... but I can in the USA being old enough to see its gross missteps over the last 40+ years. At least here they have been focusing on stupid stuff like self esteem (and failing miserably at that)... to the point of making people believe they are "Special" and giving them a very unrealistic perspective of their worth to others going out into the world where they lack the basic necessities to survive.. and at least here... so poorly educated many High School graduates don't have the required basic skills to even enter college. And I'm not talking "Special Ed" (for the intelligence challenged) or any of the Vocational directions... but people on track with the College prep curriculum. I hate to say it but when you have more than a few people that can't point out major Geographical areas on a globe... or in some cases find their own country on it... you have a lot of teachers that really should be working in a different field.

Opportunity does vary significantly country to country. Having lived in Europe a significant period... someone does have significantly MORE opportunity here in the USA than they do there.

If between 20 and 40 million illegals can find work and make enough to support themselves and send a large portion back to their home countries... then one can reasonably argue opportunity is there and its abundant, so it dooes fall back to your other point. Initiative. You can't teach that... and while parents and upbringing play a large part.. even GREAT parents can't make or instill initiative into their demon offspring in some cases.

However hunger IS a great motivator...if they aren't allowed to fail and be made to understand the full impact of failing..or quitting...they might never develop that initiative. Because failing carries no consequences to them.

Thats one place someone in the third world does have a leg up...what they might lack in education..they more than make up for in initiative...because they usually do understand failing may make the difference between surviving or not.

[paraclete]

Smoothy I think we are almost working from two ends of the sprectum, our secondary education system works quite well, too well because it is designed for university preparation when a great many will not take that path and vocational training is a minefield messed with by successive governments as a parking place for those without employment. The employment pool has moved away from full time employment so that our statistics hide the reality that youth find it difficult to find opportunity and are being told to expect to have many jobs in their lifetime. In this economy you just can't walk into a job, you have to have been certified to work in that industry in many instances because of very stringent workplace safety regime, this stifles initiative.

The government targets the migration program to select those with skills so there is no place here for the unskilled unless you like itinerant fruit picking and a great deal of competition for entry level jobs as many of the skills those migrants have don't translate well.

The difference between our two environments is emphasis on government control, education is a government enterprise where a private education system exists side by side with a government run system. We don't have the equilavent of your college system where you can park a large number of school leavers for a few years, our universities are full on, packed with international students and the attrition rate is high

[magprob]

It doesn't matter how much junk a junkie has, a junkie always wants more junk.

[tickle]

Sarcasm doesn't cut it, from your response I expect you are one of the 1% and you don't like looking in the mirror

You are out of line with this comment. As you are sometimes with other comments

[paraclete]

Tickle you are very late to the party, my comments reflect the idea that there must be fairness not selfishness,

[tomder55]

We've talked about the Walmart business model before, Clete. OBSCENE for sure.

So Starbucks CEO ,all sanctimoniosly proclaimed that" we are taking wages up across the country and we will pay above the minimum wage in every state we operate. Starbucks is way above the minimum wage. I have always looked at total compensation." ...."I have always believed that our success as a company is best shared."

So how has that worked out ? Well we learned that 'total compensation' means more that hourly wages . It also means total hours worked .

Starbucks accused of slashing employee work hours amid cost cuts | Reuters

So how were they able to reduce hours ? They introduced technology that allows customers to order and pay from mobile devices.

Starbucks also did the unexpected . You see ,the plan to boost min wages was really about employees who already make more than min wage.If the min wage went up then it stood to reason that everyone elses pay would increase . That did not happen at Starbucks. All the min wage increase meant was that new hirees were getting the same pay to start as veterans who had been there for years .
AND to top it off..... with all those customers using technology ,and the "Starbucks Rewards" program, which allows customers to pay with a loyalty card or mobile phones ;tips have gone down . The take home pay of the employees have taken a substantial hit.

Just going by your theory that corporate bosses are greedy bass turds ,this was predictable . WTG Libs !!! another good intentioned plan gone bad.

[tickle]

Good question, heard on the news today, someone in the US just won 450 million dollars in a lottery. Don't know what state, but that amount of money would tend to ruin anyone's life, don't you think?

We have a lottery up here (you know where) but it never goes that high.

I am happy with what I have, a good paying job, healthcare coverage and my own home and not a man in site to mess it up. Unless I want one to mess it up of course.

[paraclete]

. Don't know what state, but that amount of money would tend to ruin anyone's life, don't you think?

We have a lottery up here (you know where) but it never goes that high.

.

yes sudden wealth often does ruin a life and is disapated quickly because the average person cannot handle such large numbers, once you have the house, the car, the boat the holiday, where do you go then? They would be far better off if there were more frequent lotteries of lesser value

[smoothy]

I'd like a chance to find out if it really does or not. I bet I could beat the odds.

[cdad]

Good question, heard on the news today, someone in the US just won 450 million dollars in a lottery. Don't know what state, but that amount of money would tend to ruin anyone's life, don't you think?

We have a lottery up here (you know where) but it never goes that high.

I am happy with what I have, a good paying job, healthcare coverage and my own home and not a man in site to mess it up. Unless I want one to mess it up of course.

Part of what your ready about the lottery is pure fantasy. The total amount is representative of an annuity. The pay out is 20 years. The actual cash value payout is much less.

After taxes and a cash payout the person might receive 120 - 150 mil.