3 ms·

Why? Do you think that success should also be uniformly distributed amongst the entire population? I'd say reward people who are successful. The fact is the ma

by axod 16y ago

Why? Do you think that success should also be uniformly distributed amongst the entire population? I'd say reward people who are successful. The fact is the majority of people aren't successful or really very useful to society. The top 1% of society do most of the work, so they get most of the reward. That's pretty fair IMHO. Human motivation requires that success be rewarded. If there is no success, or "success equality" amongst everyone, then there's no motivation to do anything.

bkmartin 16y ago
I would disagree here. The top 1% don't do most of the "work". They might own most of the stocks of big companies, or they might be our greatest "innovators", but they don't do most of the work. We have a TON of small business in the United States. You mean to tell me that those small business owners aren't doing a lot of work? They are certainly more than 1% of the population. Of course success isn't and couldn't be uniformly distributed amongst the entire population. And I agree, those who are successful should be rewarded for their efforts. But I wouldn't go throwing your garbage man under the bus because he isn't in the top 1% of society. Take your own garbage to the land fill each week and see how useful he is. You can get off your high horse any time and come back to the realities of society. Money doesn't equal success. And by only looking at money, you short those people who are underpaid for the work they do to keep your cushy life so sweet. By the way, I agree with your last statements as well.
loewenskind 16y ago
Good lord, how did a post like that get an upvote? It's ignorant well beyond the point of normally being considered a troll post. >The fact is the majority of people aren't successful or really very useful to society. That's an insanely arrogant thing to say, not to mention complete garbage. The only reason we even have a society at all is because of that majority you dismiss. They are the ones who spend the money, do the mundane jobs that the top 1% can't be bothered to and so on. >The top 1% of society do most of the work, so they get most of the reward. That's pretty fair IMHO. Wtf? Citations? Actually I'm not sure what kind of citation could possibly be provided to demonstrate such a statement was anything but full retard. How do you define "work"? Obviously not manual labor. I will venture a guess that you must be talking about CEO's, but there is no metric you could name that you can't find people lower on the food chain who outwork any CEO on. >Human motivation requires that success be rewarded. More Rush Limbaugh-esque nonsense. Rewards take many different forms. A college professor might take reward in the results of his research, even though he'll never be compensated like e.g. Larry Ellison who some would qualify as a blot on the IT industry.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  They are the ones who spend the money,... Consumption isn't useful to society. Society is useful in that it makes consumption possible, but that's not the same thing. How do you define "work"? Obviously not manual labor. I imagine he meant production, rather than work. A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year). The same applies to a manager who streamlines a production process, a consultant who outsources labor to where it is cheaper, or any number of other similar jobs.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >Consumption isn't useful to society. That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling? >A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year). Exactly. Surely you're not under the impression that programmers are in the top 1%? Maybe one or two of them but the post I commented on contended that the most productive people are the most wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. >The same applies to a manager who streamlines a production process If you find a CEO who actually does this (has to be CEO to break the top 1% who are apparently so much more productive than anyone else). I've seen many CEOs ruin things in my career and I've seen many be nearly irrelevant but I can only think of a couple of CEOs who actually made a huge and obvious difference to their company (e.g. Steve Jobs).
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling? So a loaf of bread is eaten just so that it can be produced? Also, the developer I mentioned is in the top 3%, not the top 1%. Does that substantively change the nature of my assertion? Lastly, when discussing CEOs who fail to turn a company around, you are comparing CEOs to other CEOs. Similarly, while most programmers are more productive than most secretaries, most programmers are not that much more productive than other programmers. (A few are, however, just as in the case of CEOs.) Unless you believe that a company would be better off making the secretary into the CEO, it is ridiculous to assert that the CEO is less productive than the secretary. Less productive than the competition at his level != less productive than the janitor.

by axod 16y ago

bkmartin 16y ago

I would disagree here. The top 1% don't do most of the "work". They might own most of the stocks of big companies, or they might be our greatest "innovators", but they don't do most of the work. We have a TON of small business in the United States. You mean to tell me that those small business owners aren't doing a lot of work? They are certainly more than 1% of the population. Of course success isn't and couldn't be uniformly distributed amongst the entire population. And I agree, those who are successful should be rewarded for their efforts. But I wouldn't go throwing your garbage man under the bus because he isn't in the top 1% of society. Take your own garbage to the land fill each week and see how useful he is. You can get off your high horse any time and come back to the realities of society. Money doesn't equal success. And by only looking at money, you short those people who are underpaid for the work they do to keep your cushy life so sweet. By the way, I agree with your last statements as well.

loewenskind 16y ago

Good lord, how did a post like that get an upvote? It's ignorant well beyond the point of normally being considered a troll post. >The fact is the majority of people aren't successful or really very useful to society. That's an insanely arrogant thing to say, not to mention complete garbage. The only reason we even have a society at all is because of that majority you dismiss. They are the ones who spend the money, do the mundane jobs that the top 1% can't be bothered to and so on. >The top 1% of society do most of the work, so they get most of the reward. That's pretty fair IMHO. Wtf? Citations? Actually I'm not sure what kind of citation could possibly be provided to demonstrate such a statement was anything but full retard. How do you define "work"? Obviously not manual labor. I will venture a guess that you must be talking about CEO's, but there is no metric you could name that you can't find people lower on the food chain who outwork any CEO on. >Human motivation requires that success be rewarded. More Rush Limbaugh-esque nonsense. Rewards take many different forms. A college professor might take reward in the results of his research, even though he'll never be compensated like e.g. Larry Ellison who some would qualify as a blot on the IT industry.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
They are the ones who spend the money,... Consumption isn't useful to society. Society is useful in that it makes consumption possible, but that's not the same thing. How do you define "work"? Obviously not manual labor. I imagine he meant production, rather than work. A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year). The same applies to a manager who streamlines a production process, a consultant who outsources labor to where it is cheaper, or any number of other similar jobs.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >Consumption isn't useful to society. That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling? >A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year). Exactly. Surely you're not under the impression that programmers are in the top 1%? Maybe one or two of them but the post I commented on contended that the most productive people are the most wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. >The same applies to a manager who streamlines a production process If you find a CEO who actually does this (has to be CEO to break the top 1% who are apparently so much more productive than anyone else). I've seen many CEOs ruin things in my career and I've seen many be nearly irrelevant but I can only think of a couple of CEOs who actually made a huge and obvious difference to their company (e.g. Steve Jobs).
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling? So a loaf of bread is eaten just so that it can be produced? Also, the developer I mentioned is in the top 3%, not the top 1%. Does that substantively change the nature of my assertion? Lastly, when discussing CEOs who fail to turn a company around, you are comparing CEOs to other CEOs. Similarly, while most programmers are more productive than most secretaries, most programmers are not that much more productive than other programmers. (A few are, however, just as in the case of CEOs.) Unless you believe that a company would be better off making the secretary into the CEO, it is ridiculous to assert that the CEO is less productive than the secretary. Less productive than the competition at his level != less productive than the janitor.