5 ms·
The frustrating thing is that this kind of rhetoric actually works. They call themselves "the makers" and "job creators" while all they are doing is leveraging
by esarbe 5y ago
The frustrating thing is that this kind of rhetoric actually works. They call themselves "the makers" and "job creators" while all they are doing is leveraging their upbringing in a wealthy social environment that provided them with the necessary connections to get a comfy job.
Their actual added value is minimal, but they sell it so good that (almost) everyone actually believes the myth.
Sad.
- pydry 5y agoIt's a natural function of a parasite to trick the host into thinking it is necessary. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/141031-zombies-parasites-animals-science-halloween https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/141031-zo...
- esarbe 5y agoThat's probably a good part of it, yes.
- foverzar 5y agoI think your logic is flawed in the part where you consider "added value". Obviously, managers never actually "add" value. All they do is organize, so that value can be generated in the first place. And obviously they are the ones who gain the most profit if succeed and loose the most if not. Anyone can verify it by founding a startup, but surprisingly people prefer comfy jobs. Try organizing something and it will be immediately evident how hard it is to actually make people work effectively towards the same goal. I have actually left a position of a team lead in favor of a linear software development job -- it's just SOOOOOO much simpler and less nervous than any kind of organizational stuff.
- UncleMeat 5y agoA manager is a laborer like any other. A CEO being paid a wage is not bad. They are doing labor too. The problem is when people are obtaining a large amount of their wealth through means other than labor.
- bluGill 5y agoA CEO is doing very hard labor. It isn't easy figuring out that the future will be and positioning the company to be there. Everyone would like the salary of a CEO, few would actually like that work (it isn't as easy as it sound), and even fewer are good at it. Many companies have failed after a bad CEO took over, or improved greatly when a good one took over. If a good CEO wants millions to do the job they are well worth it. (Yes I know Steve Jobs took $1 - but that doesn't change the point) Note that figuring out who is a good CEO is left as an exercise to the reader. (meaning I don't think anyone knows how to tell in advance)
- UncleMeat 5y agoI don't disagree that a CEO is doing very hard labor. As mentioned, I don't have a fundamental problem with CEOs being paid for the labor, even being paid very large amounts. I do think that there exist overpaid CEOs, in large part because it is very difficult to evaluate a CEO, but that isn't the root of inequality. The problem is the income generated by their wealth, not the income generated by their labor.
- effingwewt 5y agoPlease. This conveniently leaves out all the CEOs who run companies into the ground and get golden parachutes. CEOs are not special, they are not a different breed, and they most definitely do not in any way deserve to sit at the top and be paid more than 1000% the earnings of the people who make their businesses run (ie laborers).