Author Topic: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?  (Read 4829 times)

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2015, 10:27:01 pm »
They do produce very little on the margin. The addition of one more low-skilled laborer doesn't add as much in terms of production as the addition of one more highly-skilled laborer. People don't tend to get paid more than their marginal revenue product.

I'm not making a morally judgemental statement whatsoever, or calling them lazy. Quite a lot of the working poor work very, very hard. To give an extreme example, subsistence farmers work very hard, but they produce very little.

Who personally produces more?  The Koch brothers, or two minimum wage people pulling plastic parts out of injection molding machines?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

thewake

  • ded
  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1470
    • View Profile
    • Dark n Edgy
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2015, 11:28:09 pm »
They do produce very little on the margin. The addition of one more low-skilled laborer doesn't add as much in terms of production as the addition of one more highly-skilled laborer. People don't tend to get paid more than their marginal revenue product.

I'm not making a morally judgemental statement whatsoever, or calling them lazy. Quite a lot of the working poor work very, very hard. To give an extreme example, subsistence farmers work very hard, but they produce very little.

Who personally produces more?  The Koch brothers, or two minimum wage people pulling plastic parts out of injection molding machines?

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.

The Koch brothers in particular? I wouldn't know for certain. ;)
« Last Edit: November 13, 2015, 11:32:20 pm by thewake »
"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
--H. L. Mencken

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2015, 11:32:01 pm »

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of a the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.

The Koch brothers in particular? I wouldn't know for certain. ;)

Have you ever worked for a large company?
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

thewake

  • ded
  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1470
    • View Profile
    • Dark n Edgy
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2015, 11:33:24 pm »

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of a the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.

The Koch brothers in particular? I wouldn't know for certain. ;)

Have you ever worked for a large company?

No.
"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
--H. L. Mencken

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2015, 11:35:25 pm »

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of a the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.

The Koch brothers in particular? I wouldn't know for certain. ;)

Have you ever worked for a large company?

No.

The CEO does not make decisions.  That's what the board does.  What the CEO does is stand there with good teeth, looking like a leader until shit goes in the pooper and someone needs to be sacrificed to the Gods of the media.

The only proof of which I need offer is Tony Hayward.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

thewake

  • ded
  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1470
    • View Profile
    • Dark n Edgy
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2015, 11:42:08 pm »

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of a the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.

The Koch brothers in particular? I wouldn't know for certain. ;)

Have you ever worked for a large company?

No.

The CEO does not make decisions.  That's what the board does.  What the CEO does is stand there with good teeth, looking like a leader until shit goes in the pooper and someone needs to be sacrificed to the Gods of the media.

The only proof of which I need offer is Tony Hayward.

I mean, I for one can admire a good set of chompers.
"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
--H. L. Mencken

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2015, 11:44:08 pm »

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of a the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.

The Koch brothers in particular? I wouldn't know for certain. ;)

Have you ever worked for a large company?

No.

The CEO does not make decisions.  That's what the board does.  What the CEO does is stand there with good teeth, looking like a leader until shit goes in the pooper and someone needs to be sacrificed to the Gods of the media.

The only proof of which I need offer is Tony Hayward.

I mean, I for one can admire a good set of chompers.

Who doesn't?  But my point is, you are operating on bad signal.  You are accepting the world view of economics gurus, who are by definition people who couldn't make it in actual business.  It's no different than Scientology, except in the scale of the damage it does.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2015, 12:49:00 am »

To understand inequality, one needs to address why the poorest generally seem to produce so little. And they do produce less as valued in the market (and if you take umbrage at that being our measure of value, well, that's a different debate. I don't claim that it's objectively just, but that's how we operate.) in comparison to people who have a lot of wealth (I'm talking general trends here, with inheritances being an exception).

Oh dear

you are actually stupid, aren't you? How unfortunate.  :horrormirth:

I don't know how to tell you this, but the "productivity" of the richest relies entirely on the actual productivity of the poorest. In most cases, if the poorest were paid, say, 50% of the wealth they generate for the companies they work for, they would not be poor.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2015, 12:51:46 am »

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.


What a remarkable load of bullshit you're hauling, there.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2015, 02:15:44 am »

As far as value to the company goes, a CEO adds more value than any one individual worker. The decisions and leadership of the people running a company have a lot more to do with how well a company does than any individual plastics worker.


What a remarkable load of bullshit you're hauling, there.

Doesn't matter.  When you tell him something that contradicts his economics prof, he just shitposts and leaves.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

thewake

  • ded
  • Known & Noted
  • **
  • Posts: 1470
    • View Profile
    • Dark n Edgy
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2015, 04:59:13 am »
Compensation has closely tracked productivity:
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together

Workers do not tend to be paid (in total compensation, aka wages+benefits) less than 50% of their productivity.

To quote the NBER paper: "In 1970 compensation was 74 percent of the value added of the nonfinancial corporate sector. In the year 2006, it was 73 percent."

I don't know, it's possible CEOs are an exception, being paid way more than they "should" be? But compensation of workers in the entire economy has tracked productivity. It's certainly true that workers in a company, taken as a whole, contribute more to a company than a CEO. But each individual worker, compared to the CEO, is a different story. Although the main point I was making wasn't necessarily about CEOs in particular, but about productivity in general. The value added to hiring a worker with more skills tends to be more than a worker with less skills.

I'm entirely open to being shown that CEOs are paid way above the value they bring to a company. This would be quite an interesting exception to the rule.
"It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull."
--H. L. Mencken

President Television

  • Told You I
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 26105
  • Chupacabra of Internet Sex Crimes
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #41 on: November 14, 2015, 05:08:39 am »
Compensation has closely tracked productivity:
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together

Workers do not tend to be paid (in total compensation, aka wages+benefits) less than 50% of their productivity.

To quote the NBER paper: "In 1970 compensation was 74 percent of the value added of the nonfinancial corporate sector. In the year 2006, it was 73 percent."

I don't know, it's possible CEOs are an exception, being paid way more than they "should" be? But compensation of workers in the entire economy has tracked productivity. It's certainly true that workers in a company, taken as a whole, contribute more to a company than a CEO. But each individual worker, compared to the CEO, is a different story. Although the main point I was making wasn't necessarily about CEOs in particular, but about productivity in general. The value added to hiring a worker with more skills tends to be more than a worker with less skills.

I'm entirely open to being shown that CEOs are paid way above the value they bring to a company. This would be quite an interesting exception to the rule.

Their value isn't to the company, it's to the board of directors. A good scapegoat's worth a lot of money, apparently.
My shit list: Stephen Harper, anarchists that complain about taxes instead of institutionalized torture, those people walking, anyone who lets a single aspect of themselves define their entire personality, salesmen that don't smoke pipes, Fredericton New Brunswick, bigots, philosophy majors, my nemesis, pirates that don't do anything, criminals without class, sociopaths, narcissists, furries, juggalos, foes.

The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #42 on: November 14, 2015, 04:26:26 pm »
Compensation has closely tracked productivity:
https://www.nber.org/feldstein/WAGESandPRODUCTIVITY.meetings2008.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/productivity-and-compensation-growing-together

Workers do not tend to be paid (in total compensation, aka wages+benefits) less than 50% of their productivity.

To quote the NBER paper: "In 1970 compensation was 74 percent of the value added of the nonfinancial corporate sector. In the year 2006, it was 73 percent."

I don't know, it's possible CEOs are an exception, being paid way more than they "should" be? But compensation of workers in the entire economy has tracked productivity. It's certainly true that workers in a company, taken as a whole, contribute more to a company than a CEO. But each individual worker, compared to the CEO, is a different story. Although the main point I was making wasn't necessarily about CEOs in particular, but about productivity in general. The value added to hiring a worker with more skills tends to be more than a worker with less skills.

I'm entirely open to being shown that CEOs are paid way above the value they bring to a company. This would be quite an interesting exception to the rule.

I gotta ask you:  Who the fuck do you think it is that does the actual work?  Who produces things?

And if I wanted to hear Heritage's view on this, I'd just go for broke and head for the CATO website.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

  • v=1/3πr2h
  • Deserved It
  • ****
  • Posts: 687093
  • The sky tastes like red exuberance.
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2015, 05:01:01 pm »
He cited the Heritage Foundation as evidence that workers are compensated fairly.  :lulz: There is zero further reason to attempt to engage in serious conversation with him.
“I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”


The Good Reverend Roger

  • Horrible Bastard
  • One-Armed Jizz Moppers
  • Deserved It
  • **
  • Posts: 36736
    • View Profile
Re: Wealth Inequality -- a red herring?
« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2015, 01:30:32 am »
He cited the Heritage Foundation as evidence that workers are compensated fairly.  :lulz: There is zero further reason to attempt to engage in serious conversation with him.

Pretty much.  I'll just leave him to his edginess.  It's hardly fair to expect me to compete with only a half century's experience when he is taking an econ course.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

 "Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.