The One Cause of Poverty That’s Never Considered

[lewisnotmiller]

A higher minimum wage would increase the cost of
the lowest paid workers. This would incentivize
more automation, & make some unemployable.

A better approach (IMO) would be the UBI
(Universal Basic income). Then let wages float
with market pricing. They'll get what they need
without being priced out of work.

I'm not across a UBI enough to really comment, but I think your position is reasonable.
(I understand the basics and have read a bit, just not enough to have a really definitive opinion)

You're a failure.

Appears that way...lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually, there was one answer which was reasonable, at least in the sense that they provided actual numbers. They showed an example of a CEO under whose leadership the company made higher profits than the previous CEO. That was at least something tangible to deal with, although they couldn't really connect the dots or prove the causation behind the correlation.

It would be almost impossible to prove causation. It's like when they peg the government of the day as 'responsible' for good or bad inflation figures.
There can be large macro decisions made which clearly impact (eg. COVID handouts) but measuring the degree to which they contribute, what the alternative path would have led to, etc, is impossible.
And the myriad of smaller decisions made? Or the clarity with which lower level employees interpret these, and to the extent to which an organisation is mature enough to effectively implement decisions made? No chance.

So they tie CEO performance to measureable items (profit, share price, growth into new markets), make a large portion of their wage up based on 'performance bonuses' and then we all wonder why CEOs take dubious actions which inflate share prices.

*shrugs*

 

[Kfox]

It means they have an outsized voice in any sphere they wish.
It means they can quell innovation and control aspects of society.
It is not only whether the outsize wealth of 2 people is 'bad' but also how is the concentration of wealth trending in more general terms, and what the market impact of this is (even if you want to discuss it in purely capitalistic terms).


I mean...that's entirely situational.

Think of it this way. Who is third richest?
Add them to your little balance of power?

See how lumpy that is?

Take a million smaller blocks, and moving a few about has much less impact.

Just because they are extremely rich does not mean they have political power. Look at the 3 women that started Black Lives Matter! Were they rich? When you look at the political movements that seem to influence society, it's not stuff started by the rich.

 

[Lyndon]

Its hard to debate with a supposed Black person who doesn't believe Black Lives Matter

 

[Kfox]

Speaking in generalities, many of these first generation rich people had pretty inspiring stories of how they grew their businesses. They often (not always) involve extreme levels of commitment, personal sacrifice and resilience. Many suffered multiple set backs and failures on the way.

But once they are successful, it is human nature to attribute their success to their own efforts, and assume they succeeded because they are the best. It's survivorship bias, pure and simple.

Not everybody say they did it themselves, many admit help from others. But for those who say their success was through their own efforts, who are you to say it was not? Who better than them know how they accomplished what they did?

And once they have money, the game changes in terms of making the next million.

This makes no sense; why would someone who has found a winning strategy, change strategies and play a different game?

If young Jeff Bezos has an idea, but has to go head to head with a cashed up old Jeff Bezos to make it a reality, it might not end well for young Jeff Bezos.

I’m not getting this. Jeff Bezos found success because his idea was original. If young Bezos tried to capitalize on an idea that has already been made a reality by rich Bezos; of course he wouldn't be successful because it has already been done before.

Having the system too heavily skewed towards wealth allowing innovation will lead almost inevitably to a concentration of wealth over time (albeit not in a straight linear fashion).

What does this have to do with CEO’s making a lot of money due to their accomplishments?

 

[Kfox]

Its hard to debate with a supposed Black person who doesn't believe Black Lives Matter

If you seriously believe Black Lives Matter is about helping black lives, you've got a lot to learn my friend. Why do you think they got run out of Englewood? Why would citizens of a black neighborhood run BLM out of town? Think about it!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Just because they are extremely rich does not mean they have political power. Look at the 3 women that started Black Lives Matter! Were they rich? When you look at the political movements that seem to influence society, it's not stuff started by the rich.

Those two things don't follow. Just because the rich have political power doesn't mean the poor can't.
In any case, if you're truly rich and you want political power, you can have it. Lobby groups don't appear on the nightly news, but they impact on politics.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not everybody say they did it themselves, many admit help from others. But for those who say their success was through their own efforts, who are you to say it was not? Who better than them know how they accomplished what they did?

Okay...for the sake of argument, let's pretend they all did it on their own. Survivorship bias still applies. That changes nothing.

This makes no sense; why would someone who has found a winning strategy, change strategies and play a different game?

Because they have different tools at their disposal?

I’m not getting this. Jeff Bezos found success because his idea was original. If young Bezos tried to capitalize on an idea that has already been made a reality by rich Bezos; of course he wouldn't be successful because it has already been done before.

Not my point. It was a hypothetical. If there is a new idea, and multiple people engage with it, there is an inherant natural advantage for a party with wealth, resources, etc.

What does this have to do with CEO’s making a lot of money due to their accomplishments?

*sighs*
If you don't follow, you don't follow.
My point was about the over-concentration of wealth being a net negative for society and innovation. CEO salaries is a related, but separate subject.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Its hard to debate with a supposed Black person who doesn't believe Black Lives Matter

Ignoring the 'suppose' bit for a sec, why?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. Please explain.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Push pull is the concept of factors for why people leave an area and move to another.

Now for the number you gave I can't find it, when searching the web. Can you give a source?

 

[Lyndon]

Ignoring the 'suppose' bit for a sec, why?

because they're so far out in right field that all they can catch is foul balls

 

[lewisnotmiller]

because they're so far out in right field that all they can catch is foul balls

Hmmmm...if you mean the BLM movement (which is what I'm assuming) then like any movement there are points of discussion and consideration. You don't need to be a far righter to see that.

The Real Critique of Black Lives Matter

The BLM movement has failed to reform policing

www.discoursemagazine.com

Fair? Unfair? Dunno. But it's not right wing ranting, and was the result of a solid 2 mins of looking.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hmmmm...if you mean the BLM movement (which is what I'm assuming) then like any movement there are points of discussion and consideration. You don't need to be a far righter to see that.

The Real Critique of Black Lives Matter

The BLM movement has failed to reform policing

www.discoursemagazine.com

Fair? Unfair? Dunno. But it's not right wing ranting, and was the result of a solid 2 mins of looking.

Well, I am on the left, yet I am not utopian any more and indeed I do disagree with one of the utopian versions versions of the left. If we just reform society and make everybody rational through education and science, we can reach the promised land.

 

[Lyndon]

Hmmmm...if you mean the BLM movement (which is what I'm assuming) then like any movement there are points of discussion and consideration. You don't need to be a far righter to see that.

The Real Critique of Black Lives Matter

The BLM movement has failed to reform policing

www.discoursemagazine.com

Fair? Unfair? Dunno. But it's not right wing ranting, and was the result of a solid 2 mins of looking.

I was not referring to the BLM movement but rather the poster criticizing it

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was not referring to the BLM movement but rather the poster criticizing it

I'm confused by the doesn't believe Black Lives Matter' part, then, since that's a general value judgement rather than a specific one.

Meh...doesn't matter.

 

[Lyndon]

The poster had nothing but criticism for the BLM movement, I can only assume he doesn't believe Black lives matter

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The poster had nothing but criticism for the BLM movement, I can only assume he doesn't believe Black lives matter

So haw would you criticize not BLM as such, but debate elements of different views between the actual different understandings of getting to a better society including BLM?

 

[Kfox]

The poster had nothing but criticism for the BLM movement, I can only assume he doesn't believe Black lives matter

Okay; I've got a "News Flash" for ya okay? It is actually possible to care about black people, yet remain critical of the actions of the movement titled "black lives matter". To love one does not require locality for the other. Let that sink in for a moment and get back with me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Okay; I've got a "News Flash" for ya okay? It is actually possible to care about black people, yet remain critical of the actions of the movement titled "black lives matter". To love one does not require locality for the other. Let that sink in for a moment and get back with me.

Yeah, that goes for us all, including you and me.
The difference is how we spot in ourselves as for our individual in-groups in effect.

 

[Stevicus]

It would be almost impossible to prove causation. It's like when they peg the government of the day as 'responsible' for good or bad inflation figures.
There can be large macro decisions made which clearly impact (eg. COVID handouts) but measuring the degree to which they contribute, what the alternative path would have led to, etc, is impossible.
And the myriad of smaller decisions made? Or the clarity with which lower level employees interpret these, and to the extent to which an organisation is mature enough to effectively implement decisions made? No chance.

So they tie CEO performance to measureable items (profit, share price, growth into new markets), make a large portion of their wage up based on 'performance bonuses' and then we all wonder why CEOs take dubious actions which inflate share prices.

*shrugs*

My point was that there isn't that much actual thought or consideration which leads to huge disparities between executive pay and the pay of lower level employees. The standard line we hear is that "executives work so hard" and have so much more "brainpower" than everyone else, and it's ostensibly based on this (and only this) perception which is supposed to explain why some people live in mansions while others have to eat out of garbage cans.

I submit that this perception is not real; it is an illusion with no basis in fact whatsoever. And, as you admit here, none of it can be proven anyway.

Such a perception doesn't even seem to follow the basic economic principles of supply and demand or the iron law of wages.

As an example, sports team owners and Hollywood producers might have to pay a primadonna athlete or actor a high salary because of their rare and gifted talents which lead to popularity at the box office, which translates into tangible profits. Even to get to play on a college team isn't that easy, as one has to have the skills and abilities to compete. So, it would be far easier to prove that a high-paid athlete is worth his/her salt, since they go through tryouts and compete - and there's very little subjectivity or whimsy when it comes to determining who is better.

In contrast, there are probably millions of business administration majors out there - people with the training and vocational skills to manage a business. In labor market terms, they're a dime a dozen. I seriously doubt there's any "labor shortage" at the executive level. The labor shortages seem to be occurring at the lower levels, so if these companies follow basic economic principles, they would be lowering their executive pay and raising the pay of the frontline employees.