4 ms·

Maybe they made good decisions and lost money. Let's say I have a million to invest. I value an expert making investment decisions with that million at $10,000

Maybe they made good decisions and lost money. Let's say I have a million to invest. I value an expert making investment decisions with that million at $10,000 per year. There are many others like me so the manager collects many millions to make decisions with. They doesn't guarantee the money will be made, they just guarantee they will make the best decisions they are able to with that money which has higher expected return than me making those decisions. It's in nature of our world that very often good decisions lead to losses.

Scarblac 11y ago
If they make the same decision for many customers, then you can't just multiply the value of the work to do by that many customers. They still do the same thing, so the value to society as a whole stays the same. That they can multiply their earnings over all their customers, and keep this insane income for themselves, is morally wrong and a huge bug in the way the world currently works.
- whatok 11y ago
  So Coke needs to create a bespoke formula per customer to provide additional "value" to society?
- charlesdm 11y ago
  Of course you can. You're essentially describing the entire technology industry, i.e. write software once and capture significant global value from it. (Google, Facebook, Youtube, every SaaS or app company in the world, etc) These managers that make billions of dollars - they own their firm. It's a profitable private company, but a company nevertheless. If I own a company with 500 employees making widgets, as the owner, if the business turns a profit, I will collect those profits.
- bluecalm 11y ago
  I very strongly disagree that it's morally wrong. Let's say I provide a service to people for 1000$/pop. They value it at more than that and happily exchange money for that service. I get my 1000$. I don't use almost any environmental or public resources to perform the service (I write code or perform massages or w/e). The mere fact that I exist and provide those services is beneficial for society even if I am taxed at 0%. There are of course issues if I have a monopoly or if I am extracting rent from what should be a common good (say natural resources of crucial piece of land) or if I am polluting while providing my services. There are also issues if what I do hurt others but they are or unrelated to the fact that I create wealth for myself. How is it wrong? What moral principle are you using to say it's wrong? My reasons are quite straightforward: by providing sought for services I am increasing my and my customer's happiness while not hurting others in the process. It's a win-win, the more I provide the more insanely win-win it is even if I collect a trillion dollars in the process.
  - Scarblac 11y ago
    I know my opinion on this sort of thing isn't exactly popular, but I just feel that it is morally wrong for one person to have so much wealth that he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives.
    - bluecalm 11y ago
      I think it is quite popular. I also think it's misdirected. There is a lot of wealth which was built unfairly/abusing others/exploiting resources which should be a common good. Those are real problems. On the other side someone who is not abusing anything and just providing services to people is just net win for everyone. >>he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives. That's vast majority of working Americans. Make 100k USD in few years and you are able to control a lot of lives around the world, not only output of their work. Buy a nice car, a Macbook and some clothes and you have just controlled output of more than one whole working life.

Scarblac 11y ago

If they make the same decision for many customers, then you can't just multiply the value of the work to do by that many customers. They still do the same thing, so the value to society as a whole stays the same. That they can multiply their earnings over all their customers, and keep this insane income for themselves, is morally wrong and a huge bug in the way the world currently works.

whatok 11y ago
So Coke needs to create a bespoke formula per customer to provide additional "value" to society?
charlesdm 11y ago
Of course you can. You're essentially describing the entire technology industry, i.e. write software once and capture significant global value from it. (Google, Facebook, Youtube, every SaaS or app company in the world, etc) These managers that make billions of dollars - they own their firm. It's a profitable private company, but a company nevertheless. If I own a company with 500 employees making widgets, as the owner, if the business turns a profit, I will collect those profits.
bluecalm 11y ago
I very strongly disagree that it's morally wrong. Let's say I provide a service to people for 1000$/pop. They value it at more than that and happily exchange money for that service. I get my 1000$. I don't use almost any environmental or public resources to perform the service (I write code or perform massages or w/e). The mere fact that I exist and provide those services is beneficial for society even if I am taxed at 0%. There are of course issues if I have a monopoly or if I am extracting rent from what should be a common good (say natural resources of crucial piece of land) or if I am polluting while providing my services. There are also issues if what I do hurt others but they are or unrelated to the fact that I create wealth for myself. How is it wrong? What moral principle are you using to say it's wrong? My reasons are quite straightforward: by providing sought for services I am increasing my and my customer's happiness while not hurting others in the process. It's a win-win, the more I provide the more insanely win-win it is even if I collect a trillion dollars in the process.
- Scarblac 11y ago
  I know my opinion on this sort of thing isn't exactly popular, but I just feel that it is morally wrong for one person to have so much wealth that he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives.
  - bluecalm 11y ago
    I think it is quite popular. I also think it's misdirected. There is a lot of wealth which was built unfairly/abusing others/exploiting resources which should be a common good. Those are real problems. On the other side someone who is not abusing anything and just providing services to people is just net win for everyone. >>he can afford to control the entire output of a huge number of people over their entire working lives. That's vast majority of working Americans. Make 100k USD in few years and you are able to control a lot of lives around the world, not only output of their work. Buy a nice car, a Macbook and some clothes and you have just controlled output of more than one whole working life.