4 ms·

Why should simply having money be rewarded more than actually doing the work?

by s73v3r 11y ago

zo1 11y ago
He did do the work, that's why he got so much money. Sure, you could argue that he did some less than stellar, perhaps unethical/illegal things. But for the most part, he did the work to gain that money. (Let's assume he stayed within the legal framework here. Because a lot of these discussions "claim" illegality, yet have no concrete example) I am rewarded (as you put it) for having say $100,000 in my bank. I saved it, maybe did some projects, etc. That money is mine, are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me? Sure, it's only $5000/year in interest, but the argument doesn't break down if the amount has more zeroes in it. Edit: Not only does a lot of the discussion revolving around rich people claim illegality, it is implicitly assumed. Tried and convicted in public opinion simply by virtue of having a lot of money.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "He did do the work" Did he? Or did he simply "lead" the people who did the actual work? "are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me" Are you honestly going to say that you deserve the benefits you get for simply having that money more than someone who's actually doing work?
  - zo1 11y ago
    >"Did he? Or did he simply "lead" the people who did the actual work?" Leading is a skill, and thus valuable, and so someone probably paid him to do the work of leading. Or are you going to just argue that "only making something of use is work". If that's the case, you obviously have a twisted world-view, and debating it is pointless with you. >"Are you honestly going to say that you deserve the benefits you get for simply having that money more than someone who's actually doing work?" Money represents the value I created to someone in exchange for it. So yeah.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      >Leading is a skill, and thus valuable, and so someone probably paid him to do the work of leading. Or are you going to just argue that "only making something of use is work". If that's the case, you obviously have a twisted world-view, and debating it is pointless with you. I agree. Leading is a skill. But leading is not a skill that justifies an astronomical portion of the pie. I would say between coding and leading, coding is a far more specialized skill that is harder to learn and find. In short, it is far easier to tell people what to do then it is to do it. This statement grossly simplifies what leadership and coding is, but the basic premise still stands. Also you should note that the skills needed to gain a leadership position versus actual leadership skills are not congruent. There are many people in leadership positions who are bad leaders yet get unfairly high compensation simply due to their perceived rank. This illustrates another problem in our society. We have a hard time identifying leaders. Leadership is perceived to be a commodity skill but I would argue that many people can do it. How do you know the janitor or garbage man if given the right opportunity can't be a great leader for a fraction of the price of current average CEO salaries? We don't know. But if it were true, then that means leadership is not a commodity skill and therefore not justified to be associated the extravagant compensation that is often paid out to people who possess such said "skills."
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      >Money represents the value I created to someone in exchange for it. So yeah. No you don't. You may have earned the principal. But the growth was not earned by you. The growth is the direct result of employees within the company, if that's not you, then you don't deserve it.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      "Leading is a skill, and thus valuable" This is true, but leadership skills are worthless if the people you're leading don't have the skills to do the work in the first place. And again, you're going to claim that just having money means you deserver more of the reward than someone who actually put the work in to create something?
      - zo1 11y ago
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  >I am rewarded (as you put it) for having say $100,000 in my bank. I saved it, maybe did some projects, etc. That money is mine, are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me? Sure, it's only $5000/year in interest, but the argument doesn't break down if the amount has more zeroes in it. The argument does begin to break down once the amount has more zeros in it. If you had 1,000,000,000,000 in the bank I would say there's no way you got that on your own. You had to work with thousands of other people in order to get that kind of money. Therefore it becomes debatable whether or not you deserve that capital.
  - zo1 11y ago
    >"You had to work with thousands of other people in order to get that kind of money." Probably, yeah. In my example, the number might not be a thousand, but more like 1-2. How is it different? Point is, you'll have to explicitly state the difference between the two. At some point there is a disconnect. And that leap needs to be addressed otherwise people will simply go on implicitly claiming that rich people don't deserve what they have, or didn't acquire it legally, etc.
cheald 11y ago
The return on capital is a function of risk. The VC who puts $1m into a company assumes all the risk for that money - if the company fails, or the owners don't execute, or the legal landscape changes against them, or a competitor comes up with a better product, that VC is out his $1m. No takebacks. The wealthy who invest their money are, in fact, assuming some degree of risk that they can afford to absorb, while their investees have time and talent, but would be completely ruined by a failed financial bet of similar size.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  You didn't answer my question. Most of those risks also fall on the people who are actually doing the work as well.
  - cheald 11y ago
    Yes, I did. The answer is "because they are assuming risk so that other people don't have to". None of those risks fall on people actually doing the work - their future jobs are at risk, but they'll have been paid for time and labor spent. They will have been compensated for their input, even if the company ultimately fails. By comparison, the investor who invests capital has no guarantee of compensation for his input; he eats the risk inherent in the venture, in exchange for a return on his investment if it succeeds. If it fails, he is out of his input and has not received any compensation for it. That is a level of risk that many people can't take. Lenders, likewise, assume risk of default. It is not the act of having money which is rewarded - simply sitting on a large pile of cash doesn't magically spawn more money. When money is lent to other people, the lender assumes the risk for the loss of that money - the beneficiary of the loan may not pay that money back. Interest charged is payment for assumption of that risk. We've not yet even touched on the fundamental aspect of the capital economy - mutually-beneficial exchange. Those employees that work for the startup that ends up making the investor a ton of money? They've gotten jobs and compensation that they wouldn't have otherwise. Nobody willingly and rationally enters into a transaction that doesn't provide benefit to them over the available alternatives; if it was not better than the alternative to take investment or a loan, then nobody would do it.

Why should simply having money be rewarded more than actually doing the work?

by s73v3r 11y ago

Why should simply having money be rewarded more than actually doing the work?

zo1 11y ago

He did do the work, that's why he got so much money. Sure, you could argue that he did some less than stellar, perhaps unethical/illegal things. But for the most part, he did the work to gain that money. (Let's assume he stayed within the legal framework here. Because a lot of these discussions "claim" illegality, yet have no concrete example) I am rewarded (as you put it) for having say $100,000 in my bank. I saved it, maybe did some projects, etc. That money is mine, are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me? Sure, it's only $5000/year in interest, but the argument doesn't break down if the amount has more zeroes in it. Edit: Not only does a lot of the discussion revolving around rich people claim illegality, it is implicitly assumed. Tried and convicted in public opinion simply by virtue of having a lot of money.

s73v3r 11y ago
"He did do the work" Did he? Or did he simply "lead" the people who did the actual work? "are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me" Are you honestly going to say that you deserve the benefits you get for simply having that money more than someone who's actually doing work?
- zo1 11y ago
  >"Did he? Or did he simply "lead" the people who did the actual work?" Leading is a skill, and thus valuable, and so someone probably paid him to do the work of leading. Or are you going to just argue that "only making something of use is work". If that's the case, you obviously have a twisted world-view, and debating it is pointless with you. >"Are you honestly going to say that you deserve the benefits you get for simply having that money more than someone who's actually doing work?" Money represents the value I created to someone in exchange for it. So yeah.
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >Leading is a skill, and thus valuable, and so someone probably paid him to do the work of leading. Or are you going to just argue that "only making something of use is work". If that's the case, you obviously have a twisted world-view, and debating it is pointless with you. I agree. Leading is a skill. But leading is not a skill that justifies an astronomical portion of the pie. I would say between coding and leading, coding is a far more specialized skill that is harder to learn and find. In short, it is far easier to tell people what to do then it is to do it. This statement grossly simplifies what leadership and coding is, but the basic premise still stands. Also you should note that the skills needed to gain a leadership position versus actual leadership skills are not congruent. There are many people in leadership positions who are bad leaders yet get unfairly high compensation simply due to their perceived rank. This illustrates another problem in our society. We have a hard time identifying leaders. Leadership is perceived to be a commodity skill but I would argue that many people can do it. How do you know the janitor or garbage man if given the right opportunity can't be a great leader for a fraction of the price of current average CEO salaries? We don't know. But if it were true, then that means leadership is not a commodity skill and therefore not justified to be associated the extravagant compensation that is often paid out to people who possess such said "skills."
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    >Money represents the value I created to someone in exchange for it. So yeah. No you don't. You may have earned the principal. But the growth was not earned by you. The growth is the direct result of employees within the company, if that's not you, then you don't deserve it.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "Leading is a skill, and thus valuable" This is true, but leadership skills are worthless if the people you're leading don't have the skills to do the work in the first place. And again, you're going to claim that just having money means you deserver more of the reward than someone who actually put the work in to create something?
    - zo1 11y ago
crimsonalucard 11y ago
>I am rewarded (as you put it) for having say $100,000 in my bank. I saved it, maybe did some projects, etc. That money is mine, are you honestly going to say that I don't deserve the benefit that money brings me? Sure, it's only $5000/year in interest, but the argument doesn't break down if the amount has more zeroes in it. The argument does begin to break down once the amount has more zeros in it. If you had 1,000,000,000,000 in the bank I would say there's no way you got that on your own. You had to work with thousands of other people in order to get that kind of money. Therefore it becomes debatable whether or not you deserve that capital.
- zo1 11y ago
  >"You had to work with thousands of other people in order to get that kind of money." Probably, yeah. In my example, the number might not be a thousand, but more like 1-2. How is it different? Point is, you'll have to explicitly state the difference between the two. At some point there is a disconnect. And that leap needs to be addressed otherwise people will simply go on implicitly claiming that rich people don't deserve what they have, or didn't acquire it legally, etc.

cheald 11y ago

The return on capital is a function of risk. The VC who puts $1m into a company assumes all the risk for that money - if the company fails, or the owners don't execute, or the legal landscape changes against them, or a competitor comes up with a better product, that VC is out his $1m. No takebacks. The wealthy who invest their money are, in fact, assuming some degree of risk that they can afford to absorb, while their investees have time and talent, but would be completely ruined by a failed financial bet of similar size.

s73v3r 11y ago
You didn't answer my question. Most of those risks also fall on the people who are actually doing the work as well.
- cheald 11y ago
  Yes, I did. The answer is "because they are assuming risk so that other people don't have to". None of those risks fall on people actually doing the work - their future jobs are at risk, but they'll have been paid for time and labor spent. They will have been compensated for their input, even if the company ultimately fails. By comparison, the investor who invests capital has no guarantee of compensation for his input; he eats the risk inherent in the venture, in exchange for a return on his investment if it succeeds. If it fails, he is out of his input and has not received any compensation for it. That is a level of risk that many people can't take. Lenders, likewise, assume risk of default. It is not the act of having money which is rewarded - simply sitting on a large pile of cash doesn't magically spawn more money. When money is lent to other people, the lender assumes the risk for the loss of that money - the beneficiary of the loan may not pay that money back. Interest charged is payment for assumption of that risk. We've not yet even touched on the fundamental aspect of the capital economy - mutually-beneficial exchange. Those employees that work for the startup that ends up making the investor a ton of money? They've gotten jobs and compensation that they wouldn't have otherwise. Nobody willingly and rationally enters into a transaction that doesn't provide benefit to them over the available alternatives; if it was not better than the alternative to take investment or a loan, then nobody would do it.