Global wealth inequality widened last year as billionaires increased their fortunes by $2.5 billion per day, anti-poverty campaigner Oxfam said in a new report.
While the poorest half of humanity saw their wealth dwindle by 11%, billionaires' riches increased by 12%. The mega-wealthy have also become a more concentrated bunch. Last year, the top 26 wealthiest people owned $1.4 trillion, or as much as the 3.8 billion poorest people. The year before, it was the top 43 people.
[...] To address many of these ills, Oxfam advocated raising taxes. It estimated that a 1% wealth tax would be enough to educate 262 million out of school children and to save 3.3 million lives. As of 2015 returns, Oxfam says that only four cents in every tax dollar collected globally came from tariffs on wealth, such as inheritance or property. The report also claims that the rich are hiding $7.6 trillion in offshore accounts
Previously: Only 1% of World's Population Grabbed 82% of all 2017 Wealth
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @02:27AM (5 children)
Okaaaay? So, you don't think my job is worth $1500/hr. Fair enough. But the point which you seem to be avoiding is that I can't think of anything that a CEO might do that would be worth $1500/hr. Can you? The only thing I can come up with is something that would require extreme risk to life and/or limb. Hell, there are people who actually do risk their lives for us who don't make more than a tiny fraction what these uber CEOs make! Why do you think that might be?
What you don't seem to get is that "the stakeholders" and the members of the board are intimately connected to each other. This is fundamentally a problem of conflict of interest.
You didn't bother to read the article, did you? If top dollar produced top results then my argument would be substantially weakened, of course. What the authors of that article are saying, though, is that "top dollar" appears to be producing remarkably less than top results.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @03:35AM (4 children)
And I already answered the question - running a business that employs hundreds of thousands of people. The remark about how the Obama administration (and some other government projects where job creation figures heavily) has priced job creation or saving. You then followed up with the non sequitur about how you didn't think of anything that would make your job worth $1500 per hour. I take it that you don't run a company that employs hundreds of thousands of people? But even if you did, it's a rare skill set with a lot of risks and downsides when done badly.
So yes, I can and I did think of a reason why a CEO would be worth such money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @06:06AM (3 children)
"Rare skill set"? Much of that can be acquired from a business degree. Also, what risks are you talking about? Most times when the CEO screws up big time it is everyone else in the company that face layoffs and pay cuts. The CEO screwup just takes a leap with his golden parachute to the next company he can leach off of.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 23 2019, @07:35AM (2 children)
So have you actually done that and been vindicated? In the business world, there was this theory that the MBA could just hop behind the desk of any CEO and run things. It hasn't worked well in practice. Turns out you need more than a business degree - like a clue what the business is that you're running and knowledge of the people who are in it, plus maybe a few decades of experience in the industry. Who woulda thought it, amirite?
Thus, a total valid reason to get a shitty CEO. Because if there aren't shockwaves, pressure rings, and fifty million years of mantle plume-generated volcanic activity coming off the collapse of your company then you didn't fail hard enough.
Amirite?
Or we could just not be idiots here. CEO failure is real bad, ok? Grabbing a random set of degrees, pay it peanuts, and then expecting your company to not self-destruct, is insane. I find it particularly bizarre how you have all these cases of CEO failure in mind, yet can't connect the dots that maybe that sort of failure is exactly why there is a huge business reason to get something other than bad CEOs and pay them enough to care about what they're doing? Just because some businesses don't do due diligence - and end up in a train wreck - is not an indication that the CEO is just another job that one can throw a little money at.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23 2019, @05:55PM (1 child)
No one is arguing to "get a shitty CEO". The point, which you seem to be steadfastly avoiding, is that CEO compensation seems to negatively correlate with performance on the job.
Yes, I agree; you should stop being an idiot.
Again, we agree.
On the flip side, merely throwing a bunch of money at the problem and hoping for the best has not produced good results.
So, finally, you agree with me? It was hard to bring you to this point, but it looks like we may have made it!
OK, this article has now slipped off the front page so I am dropping out of this conversation. I've noticed that you seem to have an almost compulsive urge to have the last word, so I will now turn it back over to you for your final thoughts (such as they may be).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 24 2019, @07:42AM
So what is it to you? I have some stamina and I believe in good idea hygiene. Maybe a little OCD as shit. If someone finishes strong, instead of with a whiny parting shot, I just might let them have the last word. But this particular thread kept recycling the same dull nonsense over and over again. When some AC wrote:
after numerous back and forth posts where the answer was in my very first reply [soylentnews.org]:
I didn't "avoid" the point. I answered it instantly in my very first reply. Yet here we are a half dozen posts later playing games with someone berating me for "avoiding".
I find it remarkable just how dumb you and who knows who else have been in this thread. I don't care anymore why you can't figure out why running a business that employs hundreds of thousands of people and generates lots of profit for various shareholders (the latter who control the hiring of the CEO) might be worth a lot of money. You're obviously not listening or thinking about the subject.