5 ms·

I come across this "salary disparity isn't a problem" comment every so often and need to call it out. Salary disparity is definitely a social problem. When one

I come across this "salary disparity isn't a problem" comment every so often and need to call it out. Salary disparity is definitely a social problem. When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. I have no problem with there being rich people, but I find it obscene that our society allows people to become billionaires.

anamax 15y ago
> When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem. Note that organizations also have power. Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  The fact that you've identified an additional social problem doesn't mean that the original social problem that I declared exists, doesn't exist. The only thing I addressed was the claim that massive salary disparity isn't a problem. It is a social problem.
- roc 15y ago
  > "Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?" For the same reason you should be happier that it's possible to win a Presidential election in the US with less of the popular vote than your opponent, as opposed to, say, a plutocracy simply choosing the winner. Neither is great, but one is at least representative of compromise and shared values across a very large chunk of the nation where it's very unlikely they all share the same best interests.
- batista 15y ago
  Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem No. That's one of the problems (others: cartels, influencing public opinion with your media, having people or ideas killed, using his money to buy influence with people, etc). And you seem naive enough to think that somehow we could do with him not getting govt to do things on his behalf. Maybe by reducing or eliminating the government? This is a sure-fire, tested way to have the rich guy and his friends have a free reign to anything with no stop gaps. You seem to see it: (1) government = some people with power, that they abuse or rich people can buy them. It would help to also see it this way: (2) government = the ONLY power that is elected and somewhat controlled by the general public and its will.
  - anamax 15y ago
    >> Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem > No. That's one of the problems (others: cartels, influencing public opinion with your media, having people or ideas killed Having people killed is pretty much a govt thing. Larry can't buy everyone, and gets no benefit from trying. Govt, on the other hand, does both. > (2) government = the ONLY power that is elected and somewhat controlled by the general public and its will. You seem to think that that's a feature. It isn't - it's a huge bug. I have no interest in being "controlled by the general public and it's will". > And you seem naive enough to think that somehow we could do with him not getting govt to do things on his behalf. If govt has power, it will act in his behalf, no matter how much you'd like otherwise. Since I don't want govt to act in his behalf....
    - batista 15y ago
      Having people killed is pretty much a govt thing. No, it's also a thing rich people and big corporations do all the time. Governments do that also on behalf of those people and their interests. Like, say, the did it for mr. Rockefeller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre with the national guard. But rich people are also perfectly capable of doing it for themselves. In the same case, Rockefeller had an armed guard or his own killing people. Now, at least nowadays, corporations do it a little less in the US, but even US corporations have people "vanish" and be killed all the time, in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. You seem to think that that's a feature. It isn't - it's a huge bug. I have no interest in being "controlled by the general public and it's will". Too bad, because it's either that, or a few guys controlling everybody else. Your country is not your playground, and nobody owes to you or anyone else anything from birthright or something. So everybody has to decide together. If govt has power, it will act in his behalf, no matter how much you'd like otherwise. Sure, it's a tradeoff. You give some people the power to act on your behalf in order to protect you from big bullies, and they might use it for their interests (or even for some of the bullies interests). Still, there is not other option -- except to give free reign to bullies and try to "protect yourself". Good luck with that. Their boss is a little bully, and still most people bend over backwards to accommodate him and spend their hours working overtime of fear they will get fired and end up on the street. If just your employee can do that to you, good luck with the real big bullies out there (from the health industry, to the banking industry, ..., to the mob). The only option is that you give power to the government but you are vigilant about how it uses it (something of which we do a really bad job). There is no option b. It's not something it's up for some guy from Nowhereville to decide upon, as if he has some unique insight others lack -- it has been found to work this way since historical times and all over the world.
watty 15y ago
I've never understood the argument of "allowing" people to become billionaires. Many of these people created things that changed the world. Should they be artificially limited even more on their income?
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  Yes. Yes they should be restricted. We artificially limit people to protect other peoples freedoms all the time.
  - fennecfoxen 15y ago
    Which committee decides exactly how many million dollars a man is allowed to make in his lifetime? I nominate Hugo Chavez for chairperson; he's an international expert on these affairs and surely the Venezuelan economy's current state of double-digit inflation and economic contraction in all sectors (except for oil) are completely unrelated to his confiscatory policies. ;)
    - mike-cardwell 15y ago
      The people who already do this are called the government. They do this by setting taxes. Reducing salary inequality would be a simple case of raising and setting the right taxes and closing the relevant loopholes.
- rayiner 15y ago
  Billionaires don't exist without a state. Nobody toils for years in grad school and invests time and money in a new enterprise without the panoply of legal protections created by the state. Moreover, since the system of property rights enforced by the state is, like any other system of law, completely arbitrary, the specific people that get rich under a certain system owe their wealth to that arbitrary choice. So the phrase "artificially limited" is a deep distortion of the underlying situation. It's not a matter of more versus less limitation in the legal framework. The income would not exist without all of the limitations that exist on other people in that framework. Rather, we're simply talking about points in a design space: one arbitrary set of choices versus another arbitrary set of choices.

anamax 15y ago

> When one person has the money of hundreds or thousands of others, they can wield significant power over them. Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem. Note that organizations also have power. Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?

mike-cardwell 15y ago
The fact that you've identified an additional social problem doesn't mean that the original social problem that I declared exists, doesn't exist. The only thing I addressed was the claim that massive salary disparity isn't a problem. It is a social problem.
roc 15y ago
> "Why should I be any happier when the AARP influences govt than Larry Page?" For the same reason you should be happier that it's possible to win a Presidential election in the US with less of the popular vote than your opponent, as opposed to, say, a plutocracy simply choosing the winner. Neither is great, but one is at least representative of compromise and shared values across a very large chunk of the nation where it's very unlikely they all share the same best interests.
batista 15y ago
Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem No. That's one of the problems (others: cartels, influencing public opinion with your media, having people or ideas killed, using his money to buy influence with people, etc). And you seem naive enough to think that somehow we could do with him not getting govt to do things on his behalf. Maybe by reducing or eliminating the government? This is a sure-fire, tested way to have the rich guy and his friends have a free reign to anything with no stop gaps. You seem to see it: (1) government = some people with power, that they abuse or rich people can buy them. It would help to also see it this way: (2) government = the ONLY power that is elected and somewhat controlled by the general public and its will.
- anamax 15y ago
  >> Oh really? What is that power? The power to get govt to things on their behalf? There's your problem > No. That's one of the problems (others: cartels, influencing public opinion with your media, having people or ideas killed Having people killed is pretty much a govt thing. Larry can't buy everyone, and gets no benefit from trying. Govt, on the other hand, does both. > (2) government = the ONLY power that is elected and somewhat controlled by the general public and its will. You seem to think that that's a feature. It isn't - it's a huge bug. I have no interest in being "controlled by the general public and it's will". > And you seem naive enough to think that somehow we could do with him not getting govt to do things on his behalf. If govt has power, it will act in his behalf, no matter how much you'd like otherwise. Since I don't want govt to act in his behalf....
  - batista 15y ago
    Having people killed is pretty much a govt thing. No, it's also a thing rich people and big corporations do all the time. Governments do that also on behalf of those people and their interests. Like, say, the did it for mr. Rockefeller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre with the national guard. But rich people are also perfectly capable of doing it for themselves. In the same case, Rockefeller had an armed guard or his own killing people. Now, at least nowadays, corporations do it a little less in the US, but even US corporations have people "vanish" and be killed all the time, in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. You seem to think that that's a feature. It isn't - it's a huge bug. I have no interest in being "controlled by the general public and it's will". Too bad, because it's either that, or a few guys controlling everybody else. Your country is not your playground, and nobody owes to you or anyone else anything from birthright or something. So everybody has to decide together. If govt has power, it will act in his behalf, no matter how much you'd like otherwise. Sure, it's a tradeoff. You give some people the power to act on your behalf in order to protect you from big bullies, and they might use it for their interests (or even for some of the bullies interests). Still, there is not other option -- except to give free reign to bullies and try to "protect yourself". Good luck with that. Their boss is a little bully, and still most people bend over backwards to accommodate him and spend their hours working overtime of fear they will get fired and end up on the street. If just your employee can do that to you, good luck with the real big bullies out there (from the health industry, to the banking industry, ..., to the mob). The only option is that you give power to the government but you are vigilant about how it uses it (something of which we do a really bad job). There is no option b. It's not something it's up for some guy from Nowhereville to decide upon, as if he has some unique insight others lack -- it has been found to work this way since historical times and all over the world.

watty 15y ago

I've never understood the argument of "allowing" people to become billionaires. Many of these people created things that changed the world. Should they be artificially limited even more on their income?

mike-cardwell 15y ago
Yes. Yes they should be restricted. We artificially limit people to protect other peoples freedoms all the time.
- fennecfoxen 15y ago
  Which committee decides exactly how many million dollars a man is allowed to make in his lifetime? I nominate Hugo Chavez for chairperson; he's an international expert on these affairs and surely the Venezuelan economy's current state of double-digit inflation and economic contraction in all sectors (except for oil) are completely unrelated to his confiscatory policies. ;)
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    The people who already do this are called the government. They do this by setting taxes. Reducing salary inequality would be a simple case of raising and setting the right taxes and closing the relevant loopholes.
rayiner 15y ago
Billionaires don't exist without a state. Nobody toils for years in grad school and invests time and money in a new enterprise without the panoply of legal protections created by the state. Moreover, since the system of property rights enforced by the state is, like any other system of law, completely arbitrary, the specific people that get rich under a certain system owe their wealth to that arbitrary choice. So the phrase "artificially limited" is a deep distortion of the underlying situation. It's not a matter of more versus less limitation in the legal framework. The income would not exist without all of the limitations that exist on other people in that framework. Rather, we're simply talking about points in a design space: one arbitrary set of choices versus another arbitrary set of choices.