Consumption isn't useful to society. Society is useful in that it makes consumption possible, but that's not the same thing.
How do you define "work"? Obviously not manual labor.
I imagine he meant production, rather than work. A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year). The same applies to a manager who streamlines a production process, a consultant who outsources labor to where it is cheaper, or any number of other similar jobs.
That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling?
>A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year).
Exactly. Surely you're not under the impression that programmers are in the top 1%? Maybe one or two of them but the post I commented on contended that the most productive people are the most wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
>The same applies to a manager who streamlines a production process
If you find a CEO who actually does this (has to be CEO to break the top 1% who are apparently so much more productive than anyone else). I've seen many CEOs ruin things in my career and I've seen many be nearly irrelevant but I can only think of a couple of CEOs who actually made a huge and obvious difference to their company (e.g. Steve Jobs).
That seems absurd on it's face. If there is no one to consumer what exactly are the producers selling?
So a loaf of bread is eaten just so that it can be produced?
Also, the developer I mentioned is in the top 3%, not the top 1%. Does that substantively change the nature of my assertion?
Lastly, when discussing CEOs who fail to turn a company around, you are comparing CEOs to other CEOs. Similarly, while most programmers are more productive than most secretaries, most programmers are not that much more productive than other programmers. (A few are, however, just as in the case of CEOs.)
Unless you believe that a company would be better off making the secretary into the CEO, it is ridiculous to assert that the CEO is less productive than the secretary. Less productive than the competition at his level != less productive than the janitor.
>So a loaf of bread is eaten just so that it can be produced?
Are you arguing in good faith here? Do you seriously believe that if we got rid of the "useless majority" in the US that the GDP would remain the same or even grow? Where would this extra wealth be coming from when the majority of the actors in the economy would be gone?
It's not that society exists to support people consuming, it's that the US' wealth is almost exclusively based on consumption. If you get rid of the consumers you get rid of... (fill in the blank).
>Also, the developer I mentioned is in the top 3%, not the top 1%. Does that substantively change the nature of my assertion?
Well, the conversation was about the top 1 or 2%, but even so. You mention a developer in the top 3%. Most developers, even most very good ones are not there. Is pg in the top 3%?
>Lastly, when discussing CEOs who fail to turn a company around, you are comparing CEOs to other CEOs.
No, I'm comparing what they accomplish to what they're paid. In my mind it would be pretty hard to do something worth a yearly compensation of e.g. 20+ million/yr.
For a founder it's pretty clear. He/she made something and received that level of compensation with a very small team so obviously what he/she did was worth that much to the market. But CEO's are generally shielded from market forces on salaries. Your "you are comparing CEOs to other CEOs" even seems to acknowledge this. If you aren't comparing them, how exactly are we arriving at the value they are providing?
>Unless you believe that a company would be better off making the secretary into the CEO, it is ridiculous to assert that the CEO is less productive than the secretary.
I never asserted that [1]. I concede that a CEO is very valuable and concede that he should be the highest paid person in the company. What I don't concede is that he should get hundreds or even thousands of times more compensation than any non-executive.
[1] I did assert that for a given task that a given CEO does I bet I could find someone paid a normal salary who works harder on that specific task but that's not the same thing and it was to address the patently ridiculous claim that the most wealthy people are also the hardest workers. Some are hard workers.
It looks like the OP doesn't like CEOs. Fair enough, what with CEOs raking in the moolah while the stock underperforms / short-sighted decisions that pander to the 'analysts' are taken etc.
But, the OP also seems to be making the mistake of implying CEOs == the rich. This is patently absurd. There are plenty of rich people who are not CEOs. How about Larry Page, Sergei Brin, Michael Jordan, Barack Obama, Senators of the United States?
Not at all, it's a needed and valuable position to be sure. And I have no problem with them being the highest paid person in the company, even by several times. I just think the vast majority are ridiculously over paid.
>But, the OP also seems to be making the mistake of implying CEOs == the rich.
No, I was singling this group out as a big source of inequality. Larry and Sergei are founders. Their wealth (initially) didn't negatively impact anyone else. Michael Jordan made his money directly from advertising which means he was paid what companies thought was fair [1]. Politicians get rich from corruption and gaming the system. The difference between them and overpaid CEO's is that what they do is obviously illegal or at least immoral. Lots of people herald overpaid CEO's as something to aspire to.
[1] This is different from a typical mid to large size company CEO who's pay is decided by a board (i.e. often totally shielded from any market forces). The board will mostly be composed of people who are themselves CEO's of companies for which this CEO is a board member...
Consumption isn't useful to society. Society is useful in that it makes consumption possible, but that's not the same thing.
How do you define "work"? Obviously not manual labor.
I imagine he meant production, rather than work. A developer (potentially earning $200k/year) who builds an application can be hundreds or thousands of times more productive than a secretary (potentially earning $20k/year). The same applies to a manager who streamlines a production process, a consultant who outsources labor to where it is cheaper, or any number of other similar jobs.