Huh? What’s contradictory about them? ISTM that they’re perfectly compatible, unless one insists that fair “compensation” for one’s work or ideas has to include extreme wealth on a scale to support luxurious living over several dozen or hundred lifetimes.
Markets have a strong though not necessarily dominant element of “lottery” outcomes, where one company or individual or innovation may get lucky with their popularity and/or marketing, and reap rewards many orders of magnitude greater than those achieved by competitors that are objectively very similar to them in quality and worthiness. I don’t think that’s the sort of “compensation” that @Cmyers1980 was endorsing, though of course I am not @Cmyers1980 and cannot speak for etc. etc. etc.
So it’s perfectly possible to maintain that individuals should receive compensation for their work, creative breakthroughs, etc., but also to support limiting such compensation to a level well below billionaire-grade net worth.
“Fair compensation” is owning the value of something you created. If you created a company with a value of 100 billion dollars, and you own 50% of the stock, then your fair compensation is 50 billion dollars. I absolutely, 100% believe that someone has the right to maintain control of a company they created if they want to do it by keeping a majority of the stocks.
Well that is a, um, pretty arbitrary definition of “fairness”, especially given how fast “market value” in a capitalist system can get unmoored from any meaningful metric of usefulness, effort, benefit or worth.
I’m not saying you can’t hold the opinion that fair compensation for property has to encompass 100% of the property’s current market value. But I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable if somebody else’s definition of “fair compensation” for an individual human’s effort or innovation tops out at well below that level, preventing the emergence of a billionaire-level “wealthy class”.
The wealthy are destructive parasites; they aren’t being “compensated for their work and ideas” because if they were, they’d be poor and in debt because they provide negative value.
Depends on how that value was reached. Were the employees being paid a fair wage in safe working conditions? Was the company getting huge tax breaks while the lower middle class had their taxes raised? Was there an illegal monopoly? Stock buybacks while laying off employees? Etc.
The replies already summed up my view but I have no issue with some people having more money than others. I just don’t think it should come from exploitation (which includes owning parts of someone else’s labor or taking their surplus value produced as profit) or be in the millions and billions. No one needs, deserves or should have millions and billions of dollars.
I agree. Pursuing perfect equality reeks of “the perfect is the enemy of the good”, but I do think that it’s desirable to forbid massive inequality. Both because of the ethical unfairness, and because billionaires distort society just by existing.
Even if everything was on the up and up, the value of that company, through the value of the better mousetrap, does not come exclusively from the owner/inventor. It also comes from the government-issued patent(s) that were granted to it, and the government-funded court system that defends it. It also comes from the extensive manufacturing base, educated workforce, supporting services, infrastructure, and a whole society of people who can afford to buy the product. That functional society helped make company/invention a success, hence why the owner doesn’t deserve to internalize all the benefits.
Also the very idea that one guy, literally just one guy, can be worth nearly a trillion dollars is so vile I can’t believe anyone actually defends it.
The Gates Foundation has disbursed over $100 billion (concentrating on projects in poor countries), and Bill Gates has pledged to gtve away $200 billion (reportedly nearly all his remaining wealth) by the time the Gates Foundation ends its work in 2045.
In spite of the crazies who attack him for supposedly planning mass depopulation and other insane claims, Gates has done a lot of good, without needing to make up for a sleazy history like Andrew Carnegie.
More so to my read of creation. No question that the owners of a company are involved in creation of it. There is also no question that they did not create it alone. The creation included the creativity, and the sweat, of hired hands with no or relatively little equity stake, and the infrastructure of the society writ large.
Yes there should be fair compensation for creation. I’d maintain that the very very few getting nearly all that creation compensation does not meet a fairness standard.
Also again, there’s little such compensation now. It’s not the people actually inventing and building things that make the money off of it; if anything their reward for success is often to be fired.
The main reason people make lots of money is because they already have a lot of money.
Owning parts of someone else’s labor is the entire reason that employment has ever existed. Taking surplus value as profit is why businesses are created. Take those away and you have stunning economic successes like the USSR and Cuba.
I think you might. It’s such a tired argument and exemplary of one group railing against another group they are not a part of. It has been going on forever in every level of society. My kid thinks teachers shouldn’t exist and he chafes under the “exploitation, mistreatment and horror” they inflict on the students. The stratification of society is an inherent part of human social structures.
nope, never said they should. Unions, labor laws, and governmental regulations are an important bulwark against this, and help to ensure, to a large extent at least, that there is very little “horror” being inflicted on the working class in the U.S. Wealthy class will always exist in a capitalist society, so if you are proposing some other economic system for all of us, let’s hear the details.