3 ms·

That is a great response, and it really puts things into perspective. If you're born a millionaire like Paris Hilton, and you capriciously decide to become a l

by clicks 13y ago

That is a great response, and it really puts things into perspective. If you're born a millionaire like Paris Hilton, and you capriciously decide to become a large shareholder of Walmart's stocks one day, you... well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything. Even though you're providing zero value to society you make a very large amount of money. In this way, not only is clarky07's profoundly and bizarrely misinformed, it is also selfish and offensive.

pedrocr 13y ago
> well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything I'll be the last to argue that we live in a meritocracy but in your example the capricious heir is in fact providing capital to the economy, taking on the risk that if that business fails the capital is gone.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
clarky07 13y ago
Actually it's not zero value to society, and you don't just get to watch money roll in. It is providing capital to a business and it is full of risk. If the business fails then the money is gone. The markets play a valuable role in our economy. It is you that is misinformed.
- lukeschlather 13y ago
  That's true, but the fact remains that shareholders don't really get a larger share of profits than employees because they're more deserving. They get a larger share because they're in a position of power and the employees are powerless to secure a fair share.
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Employees don't bear the same risks investors do. They earn their wages risk free, even if they don't generate enough value to justify their pay. They might lose their job, but you never come out of a job with less money than you came in with. Investors wouldn't take risks if they couldn't reap rewards from them, which means workers wouldn't have the jobs either. The end result would be even less fair. In any case, the modal investor isn't Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet, it's an ordinary working stiff trying to save for retirement in his 401k, or a pension fund for workers at other companies.
    - clicks 13y ago
      That's a strange way to look at the situation, when you consider the larger picture of a man's struggle in life. Someone who's working at Walmart does not make a lot of money, they most likely cannot afford to give their children the best education, they cannot afford a reliable car, they're more at risk of failing to make the rent payment due to some unforeseen accident. Someone who's in the financial position to be able to comfortably invest their money, or is otherwise a millionaire, even if they lose a good few hundred thousand dollars, it will not affect them much. At least, not as much to pose the question of if they'll be sleeping on their own comfy bed or in a homeless shelter. When you say that people "deserve" minimum wage because that's all of the value they're providing to society, this is what you're talking about. You're talking about putting them in a very shakey position, you're talking about making them borderline-homeless.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        If people can't earn enough to support themselves and their families, they should get help from the public. I don't want to see anyone borderline homeless. But it breaks the entire system to say employees should receive profits rather than shareholders when the company only exists, and only works, because shareholders are bearing the risks that the workers either can't afford to or choose not to. And we're not just talking about millionaires bearing the risk, either. About half of Americans own stock one way or another.

by clicks 13y ago

pedrocr 13y ago

> well, you just sit back and watch the money roll in without doing anything I'll be the last to argue that we live in a meritocracy but in your example the capricious heir is in fact providing capital to the economy, taking on the risk that if that business fails the capital is gone.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

clarky07 13y ago

Actually it's not zero value to society, and you don't just get to watch money roll in. It is providing capital to a business and it is full of risk. If the business fails then the money is gone. The markets play a valuable role in our economy. It is you that is misinformed.

lukeschlather 13y ago
That's true, but the fact remains that shareholders don't really get a larger share of profits than employees because they're more deserving. They get a larger share because they're in a position of power and the employees are powerless to secure a fair share.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Employees don't bear the same risks investors do. They earn their wages risk free, even if they don't generate enough value to justify their pay. They might lose their job, but you never come out of a job with less money than you came in with. Investors wouldn't take risks if they couldn't reap rewards from them, which means workers wouldn't have the jobs either. The end result would be even less fair. In any case, the modal investor isn't Paris Hilton or Warren Buffet, it's an ordinary working stiff trying to save for retirement in his 401k, or a pension fund for workers at other companies.
  - clicks 13y ago
    That's a strange way to look at the situation, when you consider the larger picture of a man's struggle in life. Someone who's working at Walmart does not make a lot of money, they most likely cannot afford to give their children the best education, they cannot afford a reliable car, they're more at risk of failing to make the rent payment due to some unforeseen accident. Someone who's in the financial position to be able to comfortably invest their money, or is otherwise a millionaire, even if they lose a good few hundred thousand dollars, it will not affect them much. At least, not as much to pose the question of if they'll be sleeping on their own comfy bed or in a homeless shelter. When you say that people "deserve" minimum wage because that's all of the value they're providing to society, this is what you're talking about. You're talking about putting them in a very shakey position, you're talking about making them borderline-homeless.
    - philwelch 13y ago
      If people can't earn enough to support themselves and their families, they should get help from the public. I don't want to see anyone borderline homeless. But it breaks the entire system to say employees should receive profits rather than shareholders when the company only exists, and only works, because shareholders are bearing the risks that the workers either can't afford to or choose not to. And we're not just talking about millionaires bearing the risk, either. About half of Americans own stock one way or another.