The 100 richest people earned enough in 2012 to end global poverty four times over. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;39305340]They exist, believe it or not. Along with profitability comparisons based on hours worked and a breakdown of hours worked on what tasks. Seems to me one wouldn't talk about something they didn't actually know about, but hey, internet forum.[/QUOTE] Then please, cite one. You're the one here with something to prove.

[QUOTE=Stopper;39301383]It's not about being paid more for a more responsible job, it's about being paid [I]too much[/I] for a more responsible job. Nobody's saying we should starve CEOs, just because they earn more, but they should start earning less and the money distributed down the work-chain. (example) I don't think most billionaires really realize how hard it is to live with little money. People who are born in a rich family can't learn the hardships of being poor and people who worked their way to the top from the bottom prefer to forget about it.[/QUOTE] Indeed, in my opinion if there is that much money spare for a CEO's salary maybe it should be spread amongst all the workers. Instead of just a big chunk of capital for them it could be small chunks for the whole sum of the organisations parts which could certainly be an incentive for higher productivity across the board as opposed to the start of a new hedge fund. [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39302074]its almost as if there's something wrong with unregulated capitalism...[/QUOTE] Noticed how when it gets regulated the regulations soon get removed too? It would seem the capitalists have infiltrated our governments.... or were they always one in the same in the first place? [QUOTE=teh pirate;39297733]That isn't democratic, the jealous poor and even middle class who sincerely believe people with money are personally responsible for their lack of wealth will target and "decide" to give them very little money. I'd love to see any of you try to run a large corporation for a week. Being CEO isn't [I]that[/I] easy. There's a reason they are doing it and not you.[/QUOTE] I don't think the "poor" and "middle class" i.e. the working class (the ones serving the ruling class who are at the top of the hierarchy) are all that greedy to be honest. Sure there's bound to be a few who fantasise about gluttony and greed but a lot would be happy if they could just afford to eat and pay their wealthly landlord rent with maybe a few pounds left over to spend on, or save for, anything they like. They don't need massive hedgefunds and property portfolios to "make their money work for them" and neither should CEO's and other executive management. I know being a CEO is not easy but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of their salaries seem rather disproportionate when compared with those "below" them who often do all the actual work. Management is definitely a very important function to fulfil and it can be done in many ways, not all of them requiring a disconnected CEO who often makes arbitrary decisions based on context-lacking statistical data and sits in meetings with "the board" all day. Workers can, believe it or not, manage themselves from the bottom up. And even in the structure that contains tiered management and a CEO it seems absurd to me that profits are not spread out more throughout the workers who carry out the work that is related to the decisions made from the top down. Surely making sure the people who play the biggest part in implementing the decisions and ideas happier and more satisfied would be a positive thing? By rewarding them with real a share of the profits for doing their bit, wouldn't it encourage them to continue their efforts in future? They did most of the actual work to put the decisions and ideas of the CEO and the management in place and likely contributed a lot of effort in doing so. Why should only the person at the top of the hierarchy receive enhanced remuneration for a positive outcome? Just because a CEO has a "hard job" shouldn't entitle them to vast sums of capital and power. If the job isn't rewarding without it, maybe they should give up? It shouldn't just be about the money. Also, relevant to thread: [quote=New Internationalist][IMG]http://newint.org/features/2013/01/08/ni459_p12-13.jpg[/IMG] It is said that ‘rich people create jobs’. Nick Hanauer, a wealthy entrepreneur who founded the online advertising company aQuantive and then sold it to Microsoft for $6 billion, thinks the idea is absurd. For him it’s like saying ‘squirrels create evolution’. Even if entrepreneurs or investors establish and build companies that eventually employ thousands of people, [B]it is the customers and a healthy economic system surrounding the firm that create the jobs, not the owners. [/B](TED talk, [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVO73NLmSkQ[/URL] for more info) Current reality is undermining the idea that the rich are ‘wealth creators’ who add to the economy in a way that benefits society at large. In booming India, for example, many of the country’s new millionaires are not software developers or manufacturing innovators, but what economists call ‘rent-seekers’. Their predominant sources of income are land, natural resources and government contracts or licences. Rather than create something new, they use contacts and cronyism to get a bigger slice of a pre-existing pie.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39305433]man life must be so difficult for him, getting paid extremely well to do non-physical labor in an office. if the downtime from a copper theft on the roof of his building is enough to bring the company to its knees, he probably isn't much of a big time CEO in the first place, so there was no use bringing him up in a discussion about the worlds most wealthy people[/QUOTE] The main cable theft completely cut off power from the building, a faulty battery kicked in and fried a server's hard drive, then because of the building's age the city refused to allow them to simply replace missing parts until they completed their inspection and some other bullshit. No, he's not a "bigtime" CEO, but he's trying to get there and the stress is greying his hair at age 40. He's definitely more wealthy than most people, but the climb to the "top of the ladder" is not an easy one, and I find the fact that so many people would love to take his gains away from him just because they don't have those things distressing.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39306367]The main cable theft completely cut off power from the building, a faulty battery kicked in and fried a server's hard drive, then because of the building's age the city refused to allow them to simply replace missing parts until they completed their inspection and some other bullshit. No, he's not a "bigtime" CEO, but he's trying to get there and the stress is greying his hair at age 40. He's definitely more wealthy than most people, but the climb to the "top of the ladder" is not an easy one, and I find the fact that so many people would love to take his gains away from him just because they don't have those things distressing.[/QUOTE] the acquisition and maintenance of a CEO position obviously isn't easy but the point is that comparatively there are people who are DYING at age 40 around the world doing physical labor for minimal pay just struggling to survive while doing ridiculously harder and more dangerous work on a daily basis, which is why i can't help but laugh when people look at the 100 wealthiest people on earth and say "hey! it's really tough :(" [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=teh pirate;39306367][B]I find the fact that so many people would love to take his gains away from him just because they don't have those things distressing[/B].[/QUOTE] *just because other people are literally dying without it

[QUOTE=Morcam;39305712]Then please, cite one. You're the one here with something to prove.[/QUOTE] Nope. I'm guessing reading is hard for you. [QUOTE=teh pirate;39297733]Being CEO isn't [I]that[/I] easy. There's a reason they are doing it and not you.[/QUOTE] This is a claim. I don't need to provide proof to deny something presented in the absence thereof. You can spin this as an assertion that being a CEO is easy, which I also didn't say, I said you shouldn't talk about something you know nothing about.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39306418]the acquisition and maintenance of a CEO position obviously isn't easy but the point is that comparatively there are people who are DYING at age 40 around the world doing physical labor for minimal pay just struggling to survive while doing ridiculously harder and more dangerous work on a daily basis, which is why i can't help but laugh when people look at the 100 wealthiest people on earth and say "hey! it's really tough :(" [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] *just because other people are literally dying without it[/QUOTE] He's been there and he worked his way up and out of it, putting him back there won't solve anyone's problems. [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;39306642]Nope. I'm guessing reading is hard for you. This is a claim. I don't need to provide proof to deny something presented in the absence thereof. You can spin this as an assertion that being a CEO is easy, which I also didn't say, I said you shouldn't talk about something you know nothing about.[/QUOTE] All you've shown is that you're less to-the-point and leave your claims to be inferred. You're still implying that being CEO is not worth a paycheck because it's not "real" work.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39306844][B]He's been there and he worked his way up and out of it, putting him back there won't solve anyone's problems.[/B] [editline]21st January 2013[/editline] All you've shown is that you're less to-the-point and leave your claims to be inferred. You're still implying that being CEO is not worth a paycheck because it's not "real" work.[/QUOTE] lmfao what did i say that would ever imply i would do anything to put him back in that position?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;39306908]lmfao what did i say that would ever imply i would do anything to put him back in that position?[/QUOTE] Taking away a huge portion of his earnings because he's the CEO which to you isn't "real work" would put him back in a shitty position.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39306972]Taking away a huge portion of his earnings because he's the CEO which to you isn't "real work" would put him back in a shitty position.[/QUOTE] do you understand progressive tax brackets

Convert it to communism

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39306844]All you've shown is that you're less to-the-point and leave your claims to be inferred.[/QUOTE] Calling you wrong =/= calling something else right. If you could get over yourself and try posting something of substance you might find I'm in agreement with you, you just have to stop shitposting or talking about your dad.

[QUOTE=IPK;39307007]Convert it to communism[/QUOTE] Oh god, I remember that thread. It was a bannable offense for a while too. [editline]22nd January 2013[/editline] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=932513[/url] There it is!

[QUOTE=Stopper;39302812]Every system is great on paper. The only way we can judge it is if we look at the practical results we get.[/QUOTE] Communism is a state that is the result of a long process. Karl Marx explained the steps, no one has ever followed them. There never has been an actual Communist country and never will be, because of the incredibly difficult process of achieving Communism.

[QUOTE=slapdown3;39295536]I think you have too much money when you couldn't possibly spend it all in your lifetime. Nothings wrong with too much money, but when you have so much money you make others poor there's probably a problem.[/QUOTE] I know what you mean but money is never enough. A very rich man could say that he wants to buy all the military tanks ever made and keep them as a collection in a very big and expensive place to be stored while also paying people to keep them in perfect working conditions and in that scenario money would vanish faster than you can imagine. In that case the rich man could somehow justify his need for such a hefty bank account. The problem is one of morals and like anuses, everyone has similar but different ones that make sane solutions almost impossible since not enough people converge to a 100% accurate common moral position.

[QUOTE=teh pirate;39295813]Rose tinted goggles, we are living better than ever in 2013[/QUOTE] Some people do, yes. As for some other people.. no, their lives are as shitty as ever.