10 ms·
There is nothing we can do, really. Money is very close to power, and obviously the relatively poor (those who rely on a salary) have far less say and control t
by thenewbtg 12y ago
There is nothing we can do, really. Money is very close to power, and obviously the relatively poor (those who rely on a salary) have far less say and control than the extravagantly paid (those who do not require a salary). It is a fundamental trait of our free and capitalist society. We're merely mourning obvious inefficiencies, "bugs" in the convoluted system of laws and philosophies and culture that govern our society.
This is a suboptimum outcome, in our opinion. Watching inequality rise dramatically over a few short decades only bolsters the belief that these are suboptimal outcomes.
And watching these unmeritorious fools perform poorly while being paid thousands of times the average pay of their own staff is disheartening. It's obviously not a meritocracy. It's obvious that the extravagant, suboptimal pay scheme isn't buying quality leadership, nor is it rewarding any kind of out-sized risk on the part of management. Tiny risk compared to venture or entrepreneur, small or negative benefit, massive reward.
- frandroid 12y agoSure, we can do something. It's called popular political action.
- chillingeffect 12y agoAlso, we can encourage one another to shift our consumption habits- If Coke is earning so much money and misbehaving, let's patronize other soda companies! If Yahoo is doing the same, let's spread out to other mail and search providers!
- thenewbtg 12y agoI would point out the recent fun little study showing that the class we are (those who work for a salary) have less say in policy outcomes than the rich (those who do not require a salary). They bill it as "The US is more of an oligarchy than democracy" because those very few >0.1% of Americans have a greater political say than the rest of us.
- kolbe 12y agoI don't think engineers earning six figures are relatively poor. You should learn what poor is before you say something like that. They are solidly middle class in one of the most prosperous times to be middle class. And the middle class is designed to sit between the upper (capital owners) and the lower. You're paid to augment their capital. So if they get filthy rich off of your work, despite their bad decisions, it shouldn't matter to you. You're every bit a part of the problem, and you choose to be a part of it. You don't need to live in the Bay Area. You don't need the best schools. You don't need fancy new tech toys. You don't even need US. You choose to be a part of the middle class in order to receive those luxuries.
- smtddr 12y ago>>You don't need to live in the Bay Area. You don't need the best schools. You don't need fancy new tech toys. You don't even need US. You choose to be a part of the middle class in order to receive those luxuries. I was with you until this part. You can't just tell people they don't need their current resident city or country or what schools they(or their children) need. Running away from a problem is almost never the right solution.
- stingraycharles 12y agoI think the point he or she was trying to make is that you control your own happiness and shouldn't make that depend on things that are outside of your control. I agree with that sentiment, it's the advice I generally give people who are in a bad situation. But if you look at it from the country's perspective it feels like avoiding the problem, and isn't a solution.
- kolbe 12y agoI'm pointing out that they're choices, not needs. They are things you can live without, and if you see a problem, and you feel strongly about changing the world, then you can sacrifice these luxuries. And it is absurd to claim that I am advocating running away from a problem. I absolutely want you to tackle the problem head-on. But by voluntarily enriching the aristocracy, you are part of the problem. So I find it painfully hypocritical to complain about your bosses earning too much, while at the same time choosing to be their employee.