3 ms·

What would that universe even look like? Where corporate CEO pay is level with reality and not x10000000 their lowest worker. Is there any single 1 example of

What would that universe even look like? Where corporate CEO pay is level with reality and not x10000000 their lowest worker. Is there any single 1 example of a fortune 500 that does any due diligence in treating people like humans or are we all permanently disposable until the end of time.

c4wrd 4y ago
This is a mischaracterization of why CEO level pay for most companies is higher than the lower skilled workers. It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. Obviously there are exceptions to this, especially in tech and finance, but it’s not as simple as “they are paid more because of a title”. There’s a lot of responsibility and skill required for those positions, and most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions. I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises due to more open access to knowledge. Unfortunately we live in a world where some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. I’m not arguing this is the right answer, but rather would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. Nearly all low-level workers in America have access to food, housing, water, and even cell phones, and we take that for granted.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  > It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. You're very nearly making the argument that the eligibility requirements are too strict, not that the skills are rare. Why do all the CEOs come from the same handful of schools and have the same backgrounds? Is that the only way to acquire the skills? > most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions Ok I am willing to buy that stress tolerance and a certain understanding of ambition are the main skills here. > I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises Are stress tolerance and ambition closely linked to intelligence? I haven't found that to be the case in my experiences but maybe someone has looked into it idk. Seems relevant though. > due to more open access to knowledge. Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so. > some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. Not all people are the same but they are all equal in some important senses nearly universally recognized at this point. Like their need for access to certain material conditions, their innate dignity and rights. > would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? The Talented Tenth but for white people? Ok gotta admit you caught me by surprise with this one lol. I feel like it didn't work out that well the first time around but who knows. > Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that. > The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. It might lift all boats but it also floods the shore. Food is cheap (well, was!) but healthcare is unattainable. Is it really eliminating poverty if we just let the impoverished die? I mean technically yes but that sort of "elimination" has a, literally, atrocious history when used as the basis of public policy. Anyway I don't think poverty is as eliminated as you think it is! If people's potential is limited by their circumstances, which I agree that it is, then our need is to change their circumstances not exploit the differential as some sort of piezo-economic motor.
  - 4y ago
- robotburrito 4y ago
  I would argue that those low-level workers also have the right to free time to be human. Work hard yes, but don't be a slave with extra steps.

c4wrd 4y ago

This is a mischaracterization of why CEO level pay for most companies is higher than the lower skilled workers. It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. Obviously there are exceptions to this, especially in tech and finance, but it’s not as simple as “they are paid more because of a title”. There’s a lot of responsibility and skill required for those positions, and most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions. I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises due to more open access to knowledge. Unfortunately we live in a world where some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. I’m not arguing this is the right answer, but rather would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. Nearly all low-level workers in America have access to food, housing, water, and even cell phones, and we take that for granted.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
giraffe_lady 4y ago
> It’s supply and demand. The skills required to be an executive at a large company are very hard to find, so companies need to compete with each other for the small supply of candidates that are eligible for the job. You're very nearly making the argument that the eligibility requirements are too strict, not that the skills are rare. Why do all the CEOs come from the same handful of schools and have the same backgrounds? Is that the only way to acquire the skills? > most people do not have the ambition, drive or resiliency to survive the stress induced in those positions Ok I am willing to buy that stress tolerance and a certain understanding of ambition are the main skills here. > I believe over time the problem will be less of an issue as general intelligence in the population rises Are stress tolerance and ambition closely linked to intelligence? I haven't found that to be the case in my experiences but maybe someone has looked into it idk. Seems relevant though. > due to more open access to knowledge. Does mere access to knowledge directly increase intelligence? Very exciting implications if so. > some people have significant advantages, either environmental or genetic, and not all people are equal. Not all people are the same but they are all equal in some important senses nearly universally recognized at this point. Like their need for access to certain material conditions, their innate dignity and rights. > would you as a nation like to capitalize on your talent and give incentive to those few advantaged to rise to their level of competence? The Talented Tenth but for white people? Ok gotta admit you caught me by surprise with this one lol. I feel like it didn't work out that well the first time around but who knows. > Or would you rather treat everyone as equal, let talent go to waste, and become stagnant? I don't think these things are connected at all. If you're going to draw a link between them then do so, but putting them together in a sentence doesn't establish that. > The rising tide lifts all boats, and that can be shown by the fact we’ve nearly eliminated poverty in the last 100 years, which is not celebrated enough. It might lift all boats but it also floods the shore. Food is cheap (well, was!) but healthcare is unattainable. Is it really eliminating poverty if we just let the impoverished die? I mean technically yes but that sort of "elimination" has a, literally, atrocious history when used as the basis of public policy. Anyway I don't think poverty is as eliminated as you think it is! If people's potential is limited by their circumstances, which I agree that it is, then our need is to change their circumstances not exploit the differential as some sort of piezo-economic motor.
- 4y ago
robotburrito 4y ago
I would argue that those low-level workers also have the right to free time to be human. Work hard yes, but don't be a slave with extra steps.