Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday January 27 2018, @12:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the I-got-mine!-And-Yours.-And-Yours.-Annnnnd-yours,-too. dept.

The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017

More than $8 of every $10 of wealth created last year went to the richest 1%.

That's according to a new report from Oxfam International, which estimates that the bottom 50% of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.

Oxfam says the trend shows that the global economy is skewed in favor of the rich, rewarding wealth instead of work.

"The billionaire boom is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a failing economic system," said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:30PM (55 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @02:30PM (#628867) Homepage Journal

    The 1% does no labor so it's kinda hard to take the fruits of their labor.

    That you don't understand their efforts or the value thereof does not make them nonexistent. It does, however, explain why you'll never be anything but a wage slave.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:02PM (54 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:02PM (#628878)

    Sure takes of lot of effort to inherit wealth and then accrue interest.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:13PM (53 children)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:13PM (#628881) Homepage Journal

      You think there's a lot of that going around, do you? Inherited money almost never lasts more than a few generations. It takes someone who's really on the ball to get any other outcome.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:15PM (28 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:15PM (#628885)

        > It takes someone who's really on the ball to get any other outcome.
        It takes someone who's really good at exploiting people to get any other outcome.

        ftfy

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:28PM (27 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @03:28PM (#628892) Homepage Journal

          You call it exploiting because you don't have the vision to do it yourself and are filled with envy. All it actually is is making good use of your available resources. Usually to everyone involved's benefit.

          Creating thirty fair-paying jobs because you alone cannot do the work of the thirty men necessary to fulfill your vision benefits all concerned according to their worth.

          Yes, according to their worth. Vision is scarce, thus extremely valuable. Manual labor can be done by almost anyone, thus it is not remotely worth as much. Skilled labor is worth more and is paid more. Management? Highly dependent on the situation. It could require very little or quite a lot of management skill. Either way it should be paid according to the value received. If you want to accurately evaluate someone's value in their position, imagine being without them for a year. How much would you pay to have them back? That is precisely how much they're worth.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:34PM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:34PM (#628936)

            Usually to everyone involved's benefit.

            Hey, that's the same lie they always use! Are you you still falling for it? Let me trickle down *this* on you.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:22PM (9 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:22PM (#629015) Homepage Journal

              Start a successful business, then we'll talk. Those who lack the vision to create are always envious of those who don't. You can't have a rational discussion with them because their every thought stems from their own avarice.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:33PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:33PM (#629024)

                Keep selling yourself that lie. Raising taxes primarily on the super wealthy and a little on everyone else to pay for universal healthcare is really quite different from your reactionary screeching about kicking you to the curb and stealing your hard earned numerical counters. The simple fact is you refuse to acknowledge what is wrong with the world because you have been able to make it work for you, and no not everyone is simply lacking your work ethic. It is just that not everyone is able to start a successful business for themselves. Not only does a business usually require massive capital to start (from a poor person's POV) but it also needs to worry about a small concept called "market saturation."

                Meh, I just realized I'm wasting my words, you've seen all this info before and still fall back to your child like screeching of MINE MINE MINE!

                • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:53PM (2 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:53PM (#629034) Journal

                  Meh, I just realized I'm wasting my words, you've seen all this info before and still fall back to your child like screeching of MINE MINE MINE!

                  You're projecting an awful lot for someone who claims to see the truth. And words like "info" have meaning. Info != opinion.

                  The simple fact is you refuse to acknowledge what is wrong with the world because you have been able to make it work for you, and no not everyone is simply lacking your work ethic. It is just that not everyone is able to start a successful business for themselves. Not only does a business usually require massive capital to start (from a poor person's POV) but it also needs to worry about a small concept called "market saturation."

                  Nobody said starting a business would be trivial. Not even TMB. It's this sort of clueless, fallacy-ridden argument that annoys me. Moving on, sure, not everyone lacks work ethic. There's also recreational drugs, financial incompetence, anti-wealth beliefs, or deliberate action to qualify for government benefits. Assuming everyone who is poor got that way due to bad luck is deluding themselves. My view is that people with actual bad luck do make up a portion of the poor, but not enough to throw the statistics a great deal.

                  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:38PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:38PM (#629065)

                    Reality strongly disagrees with you and it just so happens that the majority of people are on the shit-end of the stick. You are blowing a bunch of hot air into a blizzard of cold hard facts you evil little thing.

                    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:56AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:56AM (#629317) Journal

                      Reality strongly disagrees with you

                      Funny how no one ever comes up with a bit of this reality. I've been corrected a large number of times just this month and not a one mentions any sort of real world evidence, much less a "blizzard" of cold hard facts. Here's an example [cleveland.com] of a cold, hard fact people tend to ignore:

                      It seems difficult to believe: The lucky winners, possibly three, of Wednesday's $1.5 billion Powerball jackpot will probably go bankrupt within five years.

                      In fact, about 70 percent of people who win a lottery or get a big windfall actually end up broke in a few years, according to the National Endowment for Financial Education.

                      So people who should have the advantages now that they have large amounts of money, still flame out at a far higher rate than normal for those ranges of wealth. The story goes on to discuss why:

                      The biggest problem, several finance advisers agreed, is that lottery winners give away too much money to family and friends.

                      "Once family and friends learn of the windfall, they have expectations of what they should be entitled to, and many of these expectations are not rational," said Charles Conrad, senior financial planner with Szarka Financial in North Olmsted. "It can be very difficult to say no."

                      The easy solution would be to rely on a third party to act as a gatekeeper, Conrad said, but many lottery winners don't turn to anyone to intercept the flood of requests from all of those "close" friends and relatives. The same thing often applies to professional athletes who get huge contracts, he said.

                      In other words, the culture of the lottery winners turns toxic and they aren't prepared to deal with it. There is this constant vapid assuring that the rich have all kinds of advantages that normal people don't have. That blame mostly falls on other parties for the poverty of the poor. Yet we see here the other side of the coin. Lottery winners (and similar large windfall people) are rich and lucky. But that doesn't help them stay rich and lucky. Perhaps we should think of why that happens rather than lecturing me on what some imaginary "reality" thinks.

              • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:20PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:20PM (#629052)

                I own my own business so now lets talk. I can tell you that past a certain point, the %1 should be taxed much, much more than they are. The economy would be in much better shape if the wealth was more evenly spread around. It would create more opportunities for more people. How does "Fuck you. I got mine." help anybody? It doesn't. Eat the rich.

                • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:07PM (1 child)

                  by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:07PM (#629101) Journal

                  Uzzard is, IIRC, an SMB owner himself. I detect much "temporarily-embarrassed billionaire" envy coming from him, which leads to 1) his constant parroting of the 1%'s propaganda and 2) his perverse willingness to throw everyone else, even himself, under the bus the elites are driving.

                  I can only guess he thinks he'll be one of them someday. It's some kind of perverse anti-virtue signalling, and he holds everyone else in such contempt that he doesn't think we can see it for what it is. This is...really had. I can't imagine what it must be like to live life this way.

                  --
                  I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @09:29AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @09:29AM (#629374)

                    "temporarily-embarrassed billionaire" envy

                    It's a very interesting concept. In my country the economy is the shit and yet the most popular party is the rich people's party. I bet that same effect is to blame. Kinda like how apparently many young working class idiots just voted into office the oldest richest US president ever.

              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday January 28 2018, @06:33AM

                by sjames (2882) on Sunday January 28 2018, @06:33AM (#629351) Journal

                Most of the people who have "the vision to create" simply got lucky enough that their first "vision" panned out. They, like most people, also have a lot of crap "visions". Had one of those happened to come first they'd have been too flat broke to try again.

                Most people don't get "a small loan of a million dollars" from the Bank of Dad. Most also don't hit the lottery with the first ticket, or ever. The constant parade of winners on TV does not negate the reality that for every one of those there's a million people who will never win more than they spend.

                Scratch the ever popular rags to riches stories of the fabulously wealthy and you'll find the "rags" were made by Gucci.

                Naturally, the big winners attribute it all to some sort of superior ability in spite of objective evidence. It's just that a big win is enough to coast through the rest of life.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:43AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @02:43AM (#631305)

                Those who lack the vision to create are always envious of those who don't. You can't have a rational discussion with them...

                He was talking about inheritance and interest/dividends. You completely changed the subject to the few one percenters who do some work and talked about their "difficulties" (like valuing an employee), to his reply you challenged him to something that might be impossible from his position and personally attacked him making absolute generalizations. That is not a rational discussion coming from you, it is not even rational personal attacks. It is just plain dumb.

                Give me one million in seed capital and I'm sure I can multiply it. Alternatively, feed me and finance my living for years in good institutions with well connected people (those who know how to outsource to China).

                Go tell the Chinese who works in manufacture (and actually produced the wealth) to start a business... Most of the privileged are blind of their own privileges (like being in a country where seed capital comes easy from daddy or friends) and that seems to be your case. You claim it's not possible to have a rational discussion with the previous AC, but you seem completely ignorant of the reality of the bottom 70% (tip: they are not in America).

          • (Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:35PM (10 children)

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:35PM (#628986) Journal

            All it actually is is making good use of your available resources.

            Sure. If you have available resources. Otherwise, not so much.

            Yes, according to their worth. Vision is scarce, thus extremely valuable.

            Not usually to people without money, it isn't. You have, I presume, heard the saying "ideas a a dime a dozen." The difference a rich person applies is that they can choose the idea they like, fund it, and see if it flies. As long as they don't bet the bank on it, they can rinse and repeat. One success can account for many failures (I can attest to that personally.) But if you don't have money, you might get one shot at the brass ring. If you do, but it fails (which is pretty usual) then you're either broke or in debt. Done. Fini.

            There's a reason almost everyone nods when people read or hear "it takes money to make money", and it's not because it's a canard.

            Another critical issue here is who you know, and how well you know them, and what level of faith they have in you for whatever reason. Because without an angel investor or investors, or your own money, your ideas, and the marketing thereof for whatever monetary value they might have can only be built and promoted according to your means. Which is very often insufficient to bring about appropriate results, because, and this is the critical thing to understand: the world is simply not an assembly of fair circumstances.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:24PM (9 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:24PM (#629018) Homepage Journal

              Sure. If you have available resources. Otherwise, not so much.

              Earn them then. I did.

              And, yes, ideas are a dime a dozen. Good ideas, however, are not. And I did indeed leave "the will to see your vision made reality" out . Mea culpa.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:37PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:37PM (#629026)

                Head in the sand shitbird. Ignore reality harder uzzy, maybe loan out some bootstraps and charge 20% interest. It is difficult reading the bullshit that slides out of a walking turd. You are a living, breathing meme.

              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:09PM (7 children)

                by fyngyrz (6567) on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:09PM (#629044) Journal

                Your reply does not address the points I made.

                You're still ignoring how the world actually works. You're still ignoring what the follow-on consequences bring to the not-wealthy for that one try they (might) get by scrimping and saving when it doesn't work out, as is most likely, statistically speaking.

                You can earn, save (if you earn enough to be able to put some of it aside), and get lucky, sure. I did. I gather you did as well. Fine. Perhaps you can even lay claim to great vision (I'm not going to... lots of my later ideas did not pan out, so I know it was luck.) But lots of people don't get lucky, or have vision, and that's the reality most people face. One serious fail upfront is enough to knock you right out the game.

                As for "good" ideas, this is also a facile argument. A "good" idea in the earnings sense is only a successful idea, and likely this has a great deal to do with marketing, rather than utility (pet rocks, for example.) A "good" idea in the actual "this has significant end-user value" is not an equal set with "successful ideas", nor with "well marketed ideas." "Health food" stores, for instance, make an entire business out of foisting off well-marketed, largely valueless merchandise upon the ignorant. Money in, chiefly (or wholly) imaginary benefits out.

                Just look at that twit Gwyneth Paltrow; she make a nice killing selling stickers which she asserts "rebalance the energy frequency in our bodies." [forbes.com]

                Her website states:

                Human bodies operate at an ideal energetic frequency, but everyday stresses and anxiety can throw off our internal balance, depleting our energy reserves and weakening our immune systems. Body Vibes stickers come pre-programmed to an ideal frequency, allowing them to target imbalances.

                This of course is pure and utter bullshit, but it's a "good" idea economically, because a very large number of people are stupid, ignorant, or deluded, or some unlovely combination of all three. It's not a good idea in any other way, though.

                There's very little fairness in the world. Idiots and cheats like Paltrow who produce nothing of value succeed, while people with very good products and ideas fail. That's the actual reality in which your "earn, save and create" model has to operate. The truth is, many times it fails, and catastrophically so.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 28 2018, @12:34PM (6 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 28 2018, @12:34PM (#629418) Journal
                  How did we get from

                  It takes someone who's really good at exploiting people to get any other outcome.

                  to

                  You can earn, save (if you earn enough to be able to put some of it aside), and get lucky, sure. I did. I gather you did as well. Fine. Perhaps you can even lay claim to great vision (I'm not going to... lots of my later ideas did not pan out, so I know it was luck.) But lots of people don't get lucky, or have vision, and that's the reality most people face. One serious fail upfront is enough to knock you right out the game.

                  First, we had an AC downplaying the role of capitalist - they just need to be really good at "exploiting" people. Now, you're saying that the wealthy person merely needs to be lucky (even though there is plenty [soylentnews.org] of evidence that getting lucky is far from enough). Bottom line is that actually employing people and building wealth via a business in a useful way is hard work which involves a skill set and experience that most people don't ever acquire. So why disrespect those people?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:30PM (3 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2018, @01:30PM (#629430)

                    Now, you're saying that the wealthy person merely needs to be lucky (even though there is plenty [soylentnews.org] of evidence that getting lucky is far from enough).

                    Yes, as the link suggests, being lucky (different from "getting lucky") is far from enough - it seems you need the mind-set from already having wealth, to be able to handle such a sudden influx of additional wealth.
                    So yes, someone who is already wealthy merely needs to be lucky.

                    Bottom line is that actually employing people and building wealth via a business in a useful way is hard work

                    Telling other people what to do is not hard work.

                    • (Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:01PM (1 child)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:01PM (#629461) Journal

                      It seems you need the mind-set from already having wealth

                      Hmmm, "mind-set" [oxforddictionaries.com]:

                      The established set of attitudes held by someone.

                      So being wealthy is a matter of attitude. And luck. So how much of the world has the necessary attitude? I mean there's not much point to complaining about wealth inequality if most poor are that way because of attitude. They can always get a better, wealthier attitude. That's a pretty easy fix.

                      Bottom line is that actually employing people and building wealth via a business in a useful way is hard work

                      Telling other people what to do is not hard work.

                      So employing people and building wealth via a business in a useful way is merely a matter of telling people what to do?

                      Go make me a supersonic passenger jet that's more economical than the 787 in fuel usage per passenger. Yes, you're right that was pretty easy. So where's my jet parked?

                      I'm getting this vague idea that you might not have a clue.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:03AM

                        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01 2018, @03:03AM (#631315)

                        So employing people and building wealth via a business in a useful way is merely a matter of telling people what to do?

                        Yes, you have the money and hire a manager and tell him like you said. Then he tells the engineers to do some work and a lot of people to do most of the work. You have the money and you tell people what to do, it is not hard work. 80 hours of office job from your manager is not hard work either when compared with getting the iron to build your jet.

                        Go make me a supersonic passenger jet that's more economical than the 787 in fuel usage per passenger. Yes, you're right that was pretty easy. So where's my jet parked?

                        I'll give you a clue: Telling a stranger in the Internet to make something and point out that magic didn't happen is not an actual point.

                    • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 28 2018, @09:24PM

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 28 2018, @09:24PM (#629581) Journal

                      Telling other people what to do is not hard work.

                      Can we stop a moment, right here?

                      The wealthy doesn't much value the contributions of the less wealthy. The poor don't value the contributions of the wealthy. We get all of that. But - actually getting a job DONE? It isn't the wealthy, or the poor who get things done. Nor is it the CEO, or the top university graduates who get things done. Those of us with a military background were taught that officers don't do shit. Officers tell us what to do, then we get it done. "We" being the various levels of enlisted and warranted officers. (Warrant officers are almost always former NCO's who excel, and stand out from their fellow NCO's.)

                      Telling other people what to do, and how to do it IS INDEED HARD WORK! Good communication skills are essential to the job, as is a good understanding of the job to be done. Add in an understanding of human nature. A bit of psychology might be helpful, but we don't want to get crazy with it.

                      Civilian life is little different, in that respect.

                      Those of us who "get things done" have to manipulate money, resources, and people to achieve goals. It's an all consuming job. The level of management that gets things done never rests. On duty or off, the mind is always on the job. We're the ones who get the phone calls at 2:00 AM, "The cops stopped me, and locked me up, can you come post bail for me?" And worse. The investors don't take those calls, nor do the average laborers, unless they are close kin.

                      Every job looks easy, to the uninitiated. Management - I mean real management - is hard work. Those people born with silver spoons in their posterior orifices may get to sit in boardrooms, and play gods and goddesses, and be rewarded for success and failure alike. Not so, the rest of us.

                  • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Sunday January 28 2018, @08:58PM (1 child)

                    by fyngyrz (6567) on Sunday January 28 2018, @08:58PM (#629569) Journal

                    How did we get from

                    Read the thread, think about the points I made, and then you'll know. Presumably. You'd have looked less silly if you had done that first, but hey, it's your party. :)

                    So why disrespect those people?

                    I am one of "those people." I'm not disrespecting them, or myself. I'm talking about the reality of starting a commercial enterprise without any financial assistance, a circumstance I am intimately familiar with.

                    The point I was making, counterpoint to my respondent above, was precisely that it's not as simple as earn, save, implement.

                    Now, you're saying that the wealthy person merely needs to be lucky

                    That is not in any way a coherent summary of the points I made. Welcome to the "I built a better strawman" contest.

                    So as to what I was actually saying: Yes, luck plays a part in how well each attempt at success turns out, no matter how well funded you might be. For the wealthy, so does managing your undertakings so that one attempt doesn't preclude a further one in the case of your attempt not working out. So does marketing, which is often very expensive. So do the caprices of the intended audience / user base. Sometimes the quality of the idea, by which I mean, its actual (or relative, when there is competition) utility, plays a part, but sometimes it does not.

                    Given these facts — and they are facts — the wealthy are far more enabled to pursue such a path than those that aren't, because if they do manage these attempts so the current one doesn't blow them out, they can try again, whereas a person with just enough resources to make one attempt cannot do that. Now, if you'd like to try to argue these interrelated points, which, again, serve to delineate what I was actually saying, by all means — have at it.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 29 2018, @02:42AM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday January 29 2018, @02:42AM (#629675) Journal

                      You're still ignoring how the world actually works. You're still ignoring what the follow-on consequences bring to the not-wealthy for that one try they (might) get by scrimping and saving when it doesn't work out, as is most likely, statistically speaking.

                      I disagree that the follow-on consequences are that serious. They're in a better position to start a second business than they were the first.

                      Yes, luck plays a part in how well each attempt at success turns out, no matter how well funded you might be.

                      It's not luck that casinos don't lose money on gambling in the long run. At a certain level of certainty, it goes from getting lucky to not getting really bad luck (and even that can be tolerated).

                      The point I was making, counterpoint to my respondent above, was precisely that it's not as simple as earn, save, implement.

                      Actually, it is that simple. "Implement" covers all the concerns you mentioned. No one was claiming business creation was easy (else why bother defending business creation?), but high level business planning is not that hard to describe.

                      There's very little fairness in the world. Idiots and cheats like Paltrow who produce nothing of value succeed, while people with very good products and ideas fail. That's the actual reality in which your "earn, save and create" model has to operate. The truth is, many times it fails, and catastrophically so.

                      So what? Even Paltrow's shifty business is subject to these difficulties.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:22PM (4 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:22PM (#629016) Journal

            Well, when Carly left HP, they partied in the isles of the cube farm. They never missed her. Still don't. She still got a golden parachute and a job before the seat of her chair was even cold.

            Trump had the "vision" to open the only casino in Atlantic city that couldn't turn a profit during the boom. Let's talk about the CEO of Sears... or Tandy... Both got paid more in a year than a sales person will make in a lifetime.

            Then there's the bankers who had the vision to line their pockets and crash the world economy. Or the ones who had th "vision" to launder drug money.

            Plenty of people have "vision" most lack only opportunity.

            At least the artist who had the "vision" to poop in a can and sell it actually tangibly contributes to the product.

            • (Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:32PM (3 children)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:32PM (#629023) Homepage Journal

              You think I'm going to support failures being paid as if they weren't? Not a chance. That's the business of the ones doing the hiring though. Me, I'd peg a CEO's salary to say the company's median salary x4 and make the rest of their compensation contingent on decade-long growth in net profits. That's me though. I've no business telling someone how to run their company, though I have no problem opining upon mismanagement.

              Plenty of people have "vision" most lack only opportunity.

              Not remotely true. Ideas are not even close to all created equal and they lack the everlovin fuck out of the will to see their vision made reality.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:43PM

                by sjames (2882) on Saturday January 27 2018, @07:43PM (#629068) Journal

                Problem is, it's a big circle jerk. A sits on B's board, B sits on A's board. They grant each other stupidly large amounts of money. They talk about "vision".

                It takes money to make a vision reality (for better or worse). If you don't have it, you won't likely get it. If you have enough of it, you can spout %99 crap ind that 1% will make sure you continue to have money. Or you can commit serial fraud and get excused for it because you have money.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @11:38PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @11:38PM (#629211)

                If The Workers were the ones deciding how the company's money should be used, I'm quite certain that that wouldn't happen.
                OTOH, as sjames notes, Capitalist boards of directors are circle-jerks of other CEOs.

                Germany gets this closer to right WRT their corporations over a certain size:
                Half of the board is selected by The Workers.
                If USA is going to remain Capitalist, it could do a lot worse[1] than taking cues from Germany.

                Even smarter is Italy's Marcora Law. [google.com]
                That empowers workers who have been idled by boom-and-bust Capitalists to form worker-owned cooperatives.
                At last count, the region of Emilia-Romagna in northern Italy had 8300 of those co-ops, accounting for about a third of the economy there.

                [1] With stock buy-backs and an ever-increasing gulf between exec compensation and worker compensation, with no/little actual investment in production capability, it's hard to imagine how USAian corporations could be doing worse.

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday January 28 2018, @09:29PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 28 2018, @09:29PM (#629583) Journal

                I've read that historically, top management and/or owners made median wages x 40. That may seem excessive to some of us, but at least salaries were tied to wages. Today, there is no tie.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by therainingmonkey on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:27PM (22 children)

        by therainingmonkey (6839) on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:27PM (#628931)

        We'd all like this to be true, but it really isn't.
        The richest families in the UK 800 years ago are still the elite today[1]. The richest families in Florence 600 years ago are still the elite today[2].
        The world's youngest billionaire inherited his wealth (and avoided paying tax on it), which originally came from the Norman conquest of England 951 years ago[3].
        Trump got started with a "small" million dollar loan from his father.

        I'd like to see an analysis of what proportion of the world's wealth is inherited, but these examples aren't exactly uncommon.

        [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-014-9219-y/fulltext.html [springer.com]
        [2] https://voxeu.org/article/what-s-your-surname-intergenerational-mobility-over-six-centuries [voxeu.org]
        [3] http://fortune.com/2016/08/11/hugh-grosvenor-worlds-youngest-billionaire/ [fortune.com]

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:49PM (20 children)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @04:49PM (#628943) Homepage Journal

          A valiant attempt. Those rich people are indeed still rich. That in no way implies that all or even most rich families remain rich beyond two or three generations. That they are at the top of the list only proves that they are extremely good at making money. I'd try to pass that ability down to my children, wouldn't you? If their children want to remain rich though, they have to be as well; or at least hire someone who is.

          Given a billion-dollar fortune, inflation alone assures that living a billionaire's lifestyle off of the interest will be insufficient for even a single descendant. For four equally compensated descendants at zero estate tax, they have to increase their inheritance by three hundred percent to even start living a billionaire's lifestyle. Well, unless they want to rapidly discover that they are not in fact a billionaire.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:00PM (17 children)

            by mmcmonster (401) on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:00PM (#628955)

            On average, the stock market (for the last century) doubles your investments every 6 years.

            So if you want to quadruple that $1Billion dollars, just put it in an S&P index fund for 12 years.

            Doesn't take much effort.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:19PM (14 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 27 2018, @05:19PM (#628970) Journal

              On average, the stock market (for the last century) doubles your investments every 6 years.

              Hasn't doubled in the last ten years, let us note. And you aren't taking inflation into account.

            • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:34PM (1 child)

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:34PM (#629025) Homepage Journal

              Eighteen but yes. If it were reliable and accounted for inflation, an index fund would be a good way to do so.

              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:22PM

                by mmcmonster (401) on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:22PM (#629118)

                Index year = $10k
                Index year + 6 = $20k
                Index year + 12 = $40k
                Index year + 18 = $80k

                There's a doubling every 6 years (when you invest dividends and put the money in a low cost index fund such as VFIAX or VTSAX).

                That's the magic of compounding interest.

                This will dramatically overcome any inflation rates visible in the U.S.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:40PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 27 2018, @06:40PM (#629028)

            Clueless person applies anecdotal evidence across entire spectrum, ignores evidence that undermines his anecdotal experience, thinks everyone else is stupid. Next up: Dementia, how to tell if your loved one is at risk or just a narcissistic idiot.

            • (Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:08PM

              by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday January 27 2018, @08:08PM (#629104) Journal

              Objection: no one loves Uzzard. Even Jesus thinks he's a prick :D

              --
              I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:29PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday January 28 2018, @03:29PM (#629473) Journal

          The richest families in the UK 800 years ago are still the elite today[1]. The richest families in Florence 600 years ago are still the elite today[2]. The world's youngest billionaire inherited his wealth (and avoided paying tax on it), which originally came from the Norman conquest of England 951 years ago[3].

          That's a fairly tenuous connection which ignores both peoples' ability to game that system (say by adopting better surnames or marrying into a surname), the differences in social mobility in past and present (social mobility two centuries ago is not social mobility today, the two countries you mentioned were significantly less socially mobile three generations ago, for example), and perhaps a bit of p-hacking too (this would not be the first time some researchers swore there was statistical significance at such low levels when there was not).

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by unauthorized on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:18PM

        by unauthorized (3776) on Saturday January 27 2018, @10:18PM (#629175)

        > Few Generations

        Yeah, that's kind of the problem buz. Why the fuck should I support an economic system which ensures very high likelyhood that my social status was predetermined upon birth? I don't give a fuck if the free market fixes itself in 5 generations because I'd be DEAD by then.