A challenge for capitalists

[Revoltingest]

Capital, in Marxian analysis, is means of production. In that sense you had your own work (human capital) to invest. But that alone would make every worker a capitalist. Add to that the ability to produce "Mehrwert" (added value) from some kind of other means of production, machines, employees, investments and you have the prototype of a capitalist. If your company/business owned a car to drive you to your customers, you were a capitalist.

I differed from workers who were employees of a company.
- My focus was on particular projects. Upon finishing one,
my work at that company was typically done.
- Sometimes I provided temporary labor til there was nothing
productive to do. I'd inform my customer of that, & move on.
- I had to find new gigs regularly. (I liked changing industries.)
- I sometimes worked thru agencies (job shops), & other times
had my own clients.
- Jobs could be fixed price or billed by the hour.

Sure sounds like capitalism, eh.

 

[Heyo]

Thanks, Heyo. One of the reasons I started this thread was because of numerous conversations I've had with ideological capitalists and their fellow travelers who have tried to pass off this notion that there's some kind of logical, objective "science" to all of this. They often try to use tactics of ridicule and belittlement, saying things like "well, you just don't know anything about economics," as if they believe that economics is a hard science with mathematical precision.

Well, there are parts of economy that are mathematically precise, just as meteorology which builds on known physical laws. And we know how precise meteorologists are in their predictions.
Take also into account that economics is not always build on known laws but on heuristics, assumptions and pure ideology, you get a model of immense complexity and only a part of your tools are working.

I don't think many people have so great a problem with the capitalist "system" as much as they have a problem with the common lies used to prop it up. Their adherence to the "just world" fallacy and social Darwinism would indicate a certain level of malice, misanthropy, and amorality in the capitalist mindset. And yet, they think they're morally qualified to judge socialists (or anyone else who questions their religious beliefs). They think they hold some kind of moral high ground over other systems and other countries, but they really don't.

I just wish more of them would be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

First rule of capitalism: don't talk about capitalism.

 

[Revoltingest]

First rule of capitalism: don't talk about capitalism.

Dang.....am I going to get spanked by staff for blathering on & on about capitalism?
My cronies & I talk about it all the time....when we aren't plotting overthrow of government.

 

[Heyo]

I differed from workers who were employees of a company.
- My focus was on particular projects. Upon finishing one,
my work at that company was typically done.
- Sometimes I provided temporary labor til there was nothing
productive to do. I'd inform my customer of that, & move on.
- I had to find new gigs regularly. (I liked changing industries.)
- I sometimes worked thru agencies (job shops), & other times
had my own clients.
- Jobs could be fixed price or billed by the hour.

Sure sounds like capitalism, eh.

I was a freelance programmer part of my career. I know the drill.
I assumed you had a consulting firm with employees. I don't count freelancers as capitalists.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was a freelance programmer part of my career. I know the drill.
I assumed you had a consulting firm with employees. I don't count freelancers as capitalists.

No employees.
But I say that freelancers are indeed capitalists.
We're an integral part of the system.....you capitalist, you!

 

[Heyo]

Dang.....am I going to get spanked by staff for blathering on & on about capitalism?
My cronies & I talk about it all the time....when we aren't plotting overthrow of government.

You may talk in company of other capitalists, of course.
But don't talk to employees or outsiders. You can lie and obfuscate if you want.

 

[Revoltingest]

You may talk in company of other capitalists, of course.
But don't talk to employees or outsiders. You can lie and obfuscate if you want.

I push the gospel of capitalism to all who will listen....& to some who won't.

 

[sayak83]

So, here is the challenge, for those willing to accept it.


Capitalists often argue that they're "worth it," that those at the very top who earn exorbitant, obscenely high salaries are worth every penny to whatever organization is paying them that amount. This argument seems to imply that an organization might lose money (or be diminished in some other way) if they don't pay some executive a ridiculously high salary.


Well, I would just like to see what this would look like in writing, showing the math.


I found a list of the highest paid CEOs (Who Was the Highest Paid American CEO in 2018?). It's a little less than a year old, but it still should be current enough for this exercise.


Let's take number 3 on the list, Bob Iger, CEO/Chairman of Walt Disney Co., whose compensation in 2018 was $146,616,652. That's $70,488.78 per hour, based on a 40-hour work week.


What, exactly, is the message they're sending by paying such a huge salary? Is this guy so incredibly talented and indispensible that they just had to have him as CEO? Are they saying that they would lose money if they hired someone else for less? How do they calculate something like that? What if they got someone who's a little less qualified who's willing to take less?


For example, say they got someone to take the job at $10,000,000 a year (which is still obscenely high, but nevermind). Disney would save $136,616,652, but by paying Iger what they're paying him, they're essentially saying that, without his leadership, the company would end up losing whatever is they'd be saving and be worse off financially.


Again, how do they calculate this? Is there some kind of secret accountant's formula they use? If anyone knows the answer to this, I'm genuinely curious. It sounds like it's just stupidity, greed, and manipulation, but if there truly is a rational, scientifically provable explanation, I'd love to see it (and I'd love to look at the math).


According to his Wiki article, Bob Iger has a BS degree in radio and TV from Ithaca College. No other education to speak of, and he's certainly not the creator and founder of the company named after Walt Disney. It wasn't his vision that built Disneyland or Disney World. So, what makes him worth that much to that organization?


Of course, I'm not necessarily expecting that anyone here would know the inner workings of the Walt Disney Co., although if you're familiar with any other company with a similar situation, I'd be interested in hearing your comments.


If a bachelor's degree is all it takes to be a CEO, then why doesn't everyone with bachelor's degrees earn $146 million per year? Another commonly used capitalist argument is that the big money goes to those with the best skill sets, and that if one is not making much money, then it's because their skills are not useful or valuable.


In comparison, I've read that the average neurosurgeon makes about $500,000 a year, which is decent, and commensurate with the required skills, education, and the actual work involved. There are also very few people who can actually do that job, so there are actual shortages in qualified people.


In contrast, I would seriously doubt that any company would have trouble finding someone qualified to be a CEO, so I'm sure they would have plenty of applicants for the job. Everybody wants to be the boss, so there's plenty of people wanting the job, and many of them probably have bachelor's degrees in something or other. In terms of supply and demand, the supply of available personnel to be CEO is probably greater than that of the supply of qualified neurosurgeons.


So, all you capitalists and self-proclaimed experts in the study of economics, this is your challenge. Please show your work. Take any CEO or any other high-salaried individual and prove that they're actually "worth it" and that they're somehow so much more valuable and useful to the well-being of the United States. Prove that their skill set (and whatever it is they create or produce, if anything) is actually worth that much more than the skill set of a minimum wage worker (or even a neurosurgeon).


Who has more practical use to the United States? The CEO of Disney, or 293 neurosurgeons?

Should there be a law for salary caps? Would not that be against the basic freedoms?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Should there be a law for salary caps? Would not that be against the basic freedoms?

Which basic freedoms, specifically?

 

[sayak83]

Which basic freedoms, specifically?

A private person can give his money to anybody he/she wants. Same for company I guess. It's the company's money.

 

[Heyo]

Should there be a law for salary caps? Would not that be against the basic freedoms?

No need for a cap. Just tax the companies depending on the difference between lowest and highest salary.

 

[Stevicus]

Should there be a law for salary caps? Would not that be against the basic freedoms?

A private person can give his money to anybody he/she wants. Same for company I guess. It's the company's money.

I'm not specifically advocating for such a law. A private person can take all his money and flush it down the toilet if he wants.

But the key thing is that they do it because they can. There's no "science" to it at all. It's just based on whimsy, but capitalists refuse to admit this. I just wish they would own up to it and tell the truth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, here is the challenge, for those willing to accept it.


Capitalists often argue that they're "worth it," that those at the very top who earn exorbitant, obscenely high salaries are worth every penny to whatever organization is paying them that amount. This argument seems to imply that an organization might lose money (or be diminished in some other way) if they don't pay some executive a ridiculously high salary.


Well, I would just like to see what this would look like in writing, showing the math.


I found a list of the highest paid CEOs (Who Was the Highest Paid American CEO in 2018?). It's a little less than a year old, but it still should be current enough for this exercise.


Let's take number 3 on the list, Bob Iger, CEO/Chairman of Walt Disney Co., whose compensation in 2018 was $146,616,652. That's $70,488.78 per hour, based on a 40-hour work week.


What, exactly, is the message they're sending by paying such a huge salary? Is this guy so incredibly talented and indispensible that they just had to have him as CEO? Are they saying that they would lose money if they hired someone else for less? How do they calculate something like that? What if they got someone who's a little less qualified who's willing to take less?


For example, say they got someone to take the job at $10,000,000 a year (which is still obscenely high, but nevermind). Disney would save $136,616,652, but by paying Iger what they're paying him, they're essentially saying that, without his leadership, the company would end up losing whatever is they'd be saving and be worse off financially.


Again, how do they calculate this? Is there some kind of secret accountant's formula they use? If anyone knows the answer to this, I'm genuinely curious. It sounds like it's just stupidity, greed, and manipulation, but if there truly is a rational, scientifically provable explanation, I'd love to see it (and I'd love to look at the math).


According to his Wiki article, Bob Iger has a BS degree in radio and TV from Ithaca College. No other education to speak of, and he's certainly not the creator and founder of the company named after Walt Disney. It wasn't his vision that built Disneyland or Disney World. So, what makes him worth that much to that organization?


Of course, I'm not necessarily expecting that anyone here would know the inner workings of the Walt Disney Co., although if you're familiar with any other company with a similar situation, I'd be interested in hearing your comments.


If a bachelor's degree is all it takes to be a CEO, then why doesn't everyone with bachelor's degrees earn $146 million per year? Another commonly used capitalist argument is that the big money goes to those with the best skill sets, and that if one is not making much money, then it's because their skills are not useful or valuable.


In comparison, I've read that the average neurosurgeon makes about $500,000 a year, which is decent, and commensurate with the required skills, education, and the actual work involved. There are also very few people who can actually do that job, so there are actual shortages in qualified people.


In contrast, I would seriously doubt that any company would have trouble finding someone qualified to be a CEO, so I'm sure they would have plenty of applicants for the job. Everybody wants to be the boss, so there's plenty of people wanting the job, and many of them probably have bachelor's degrees in something or other. In terms of supply and demand, the supply of available personnel to be CEO is probably greater than that of the supply of qualified neurosurgeons.


So, all you capitalists and self-proclaimed experts in the study of economics, this is your challenge. Please show your work. Take any CEO or any other high-salaried individual and prove that they're actually "worth it" and that they're somehow so much more valuable and useful to the well-being of the United States. Prove that their skill set (and whatever it is they create or produce, if anything) is actually worth that much more than the skill set of a minimum wage worker (or even a neurosurgeon).


Who has more practical use to the United States? The CEO of Disney, or 293 neurosurgeons?

What I think is even more disturbing is not what CEOs make, but what they make when they get fired.
Where else in the entirety of the business world do you see that happen?

Exhibit A: https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago...-fired-ceo-easterbrook-severance-package.html

If I was a CEO, I'd be smiling too as I can make a luxurious living off of just by being fired.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the key thing is that they do it because they can. There's no "science" to it at all. It's just based on whimsy, but capitalists refuse to admit this. I just wish they would own up to it and tell the truth.

Exactly what is it that I'm hiding, ie, not admitting?
If anything, capitalists who own up to their system,
unlike commies, socialists, & hunter gatherer advocates.

 

[Tambourine]

It was a company of one, selling only my services to businesses in need.

Then you weren't a capitalist in the Marxian sense. Capitalists earn their money by making others work for them.

Now, if you had employees who did most of the work, then you would definitely be a capitalist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you weren't a capitalist in the Marxian sense. Capitalists earn their money by making others work for them.

I'm Ameristanian, not Marxian.
So I was a capitalist even when I was an uncapitalized company of one.
Btw, later I became a company of more, with some capital.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm Ameristanian, not Marxian.
Here, I was a capitalist even when I was only a company of one.
Btw, later I became a company of more, with some capital.

In American terminology, there are no capitalists, you're all "middle class".

 

[Revoltingest]

In American terminology, there are no capitalists, you're all "middle class".

That is an interesting view.

 

[Stevicus]

Exactly what is it that I'm hiding, ie, not admitting?
If anything, capitalists who own up to their system,
unlike commies, socialists, & hunter gatherer advocates.

I wasn't talking about you personally. I don't even know you on a personal level; all I know is what I've learned in our conversations over the years. But I haven't read all of your posts, so I don't know all that you've admitted to. Maybe you spilled the beans and admitted to everything at some point, but I might have missed it.

But as to the point I was making, I thought I made it clear in the part that you quoted. But that being the case, are you saying here that you acknowledge and agree with the idea that economics is not a hard science and that capitalists do what they do because they can?

As for what commies own up to, I will note that Khrushchev denounced Stalin. They actually admitted to quite a bit in the long run. Capitalists tend to do the opposite, as they tend to gloss over and sanitize history in an attempt to make capitalism come out smelling like a rose. Capitalists make for poor historians.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't talking about you personally.

Well, you did say....
"....capitalists refuse to admit this."
I'm a capitalist, & therefore addressed in your post.

I don't even know you on a personal level; all I know is what I've learned in our conversations over the years. But I haven't read all of your posts, so I don't know all that you've admitted to. Maybe you spilled the beans and admitted to everything at some point, but I might have missed it.

There are beans to spill?

But as to the point I was making, I thought I made it clear in the part that you quoted. But that being the case, are you saying here that you acknowledge and agree with the idea that economics is not a hard science and that capitalists do what they do because they can?

Economics has it's hard aspects (quantitative analysis),
but it also has its psychological components. The area
of application matters greatly.
This is rather obvious....hardly something I'd deny.
I speak as one of the capitalists.

As for what commies own up to, I will note that Khrushchev denounced Stalin. They actually admitted to quite a bit in the long run.

Commies & socialists on RF generally won't even admit to countries using their systems.

Capitalists tend to do the opposite, as they tend to gloss over and sanitize history in an attempt to make capitalism come out smelling like a rose. Capitalists make for poor historians.

OK.