3 ms·

> Why should a founder/CEO earn 10 to 100 times more than that NBA star (10,000 to 100,000 times more than the strawberry picker) for a social media company tha

> Why should a founder/CEO earn 10 to 100 times more than that NBA star (10,000 to 100,000 times more than the strawberry picker) for a social media company that profits off of social media addiction, undermining privacy to harvest information to sell advertising that in turn is used to manipulate people's emotions and weaknesses? If your answer is that "the market says so", you are begging the question. If your answer is that it's because of "human nature", we've made that a self-fulfilling prophesy by adopting a system where "selfishness is a virtue". No one will ever come to a consensus about what they think the economic reward for a particular thing should be. Why should we listen to you about what is fair and how much an NBA star should make? Markets should decide, with people voting with their money

eevilspock 5y ago
You beg the question. You can't claim that markets are the arbiter of fair value by arguing that markets decide fair value. See my other reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28457605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28457605 > people voting with their money This also begs the question. If the system is unfair, then what you say is "their money" is at question. There are also challenges to the notion of any Earth resources being private property. You don't get to assume capitalist principles to argue that capitalism is correct. Agreed that we won't come to consensus. There is no consensus that capitalism and so-called "free labor markets" are the right way. You preference just happens to own the day. But so once did Feudalism. And slavery. And the divine right of kings. To believe that humanity has now arrived at the be all and end all of economic systems is sheer human arrogance and folly.
- dbsmith83 5y ago
  > To believe that humanity has now arrived at the be all and end all of economic systems is sheer human arrogance and folly. Says the guy trying to dictate what everyone should get paid. Also, that is a strawman argument since no one claimed we are at the 'end all be all' of economic systems.

eevilspock 5y ago

You beg the question. You can't claim that markets are the arbiter of fair value by arguing that markets decide fair value. See my other reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28457605 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28457605 > people voting with their money This also begs the question. If the system is unfair, then what you say is "their money" is at question. There are also challenges to the notion of any Earth resources being private property. You don't get to assume capitalist principles to argue that capitalism is correct. Agreed that we won't come to consensus. There is no consensus that capitalism and so-called "free labor markets" are the right way. You preference just happens to own the day. But so once did Feudalism. And slavery. And the divine right of kings. To believe that humanity has now arrived at the be all and end all of economic systems is sheer human arrogance and folly.

dbsmith83 5y ago
> To believe that humanity has now arrived at the be all and end all of economic systems is sheer human arrogance and folly. Says the guy trying to dictate what everyone should get paid. Also, that is a strawman argument since no one claimed we are at the 'end all be all' of economic systems.