Trump versus Clinton?

[abaris]

For example I can't just say "Ok, I'm starting a company called Pauls computers, we aren't as good as Microsoft, we don't have a trusted company brand, I've invested no time at all in computer programming but I want people to be forced to buy Paul computers resulting in me earning as much as Bill Gates."

No question about Gates knowing his stuff, but he already started out loaded. And if his mother hadn't arranged for the IBM contract through personal relations with the CEO, Bill would have had a much harder time.

Not everything is entirely down to personal merit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Since we keep on talking about what people deserve, with relation to their pay, and by reference to specific professions..let's take a look at the reason that some of those professions make less (or more) than the others..in reality, as opposed to any particular person's smug appraisal of their own self worth and the reduced value of others by reference to their jobs.

Teachers and farmers, for example....are softly forced into lesser pay for a good reason.  We want those services to be as broadly available as possible.  If farmers charged more for their product, as a consequence, their products would be out of reach for some segment of the public.  In other words, an even greater number of people would starve for lack of money.  If teachers were as well paid as they might wish to be, their services, too, would be beyond the reach of some segment of the populace.  An even greater number of people would be under-educated for lack of money.  

For some odd reason, we don't subject doctors (and a great many other professions) to such controls.  Now, a person might say.."the other stuff is a luxury, people should be able to charge whatever they want and pay whatever they want for luxury services and products"...to which I'd agree.  That, however, completely pulls the rug out from under any mention of what the producer or provider of said services -deserves-. It;s just an issue, as I mentioned before...of what people ask for and what people are willing to pay. The business plans we write, they help us seek out those willing customers that can meet our demands...they don't make us deserving of that money in any sense of the word. They don't actually ensure that we get it, either, ofc....and why -should- they?

The money doesn't come from our business plans, or even from our ability to write them. Beyond the silliness of the notion that they might (and by extension that skill might) make us deserving...the plan itself isn't even the operative portion in creating the money. You can write the best business plan the world has ever seen and fail to make a dime, the market rejects it. The market is not a logical actor making logical decisions, nor are they paying anyone for the -plan-. We've vastly overestimated the value of our own skill in either coming up with a plan or attempting to carry it out. All other things beings equal, it's good to have a plan, it;s good to be skilled..but all other things are not equal...and just because having the plan is -one- thing we can do to better our chances, that doesn't make it the most important factor in our success in any way other than it being the most important factor we can directly effect. We all rely, all of us, on a series of decisions made by others, not always logical, not always good decisions, to profit. Not on what we deserve, not on what we plan for, not on our greater intrinsic value than another. Just money changing hands. That's it, that's all, there's nothing else to it. You can make the shittier product and simultaneously the greater profits. You can make the superior product and inferior profit. You can be more skilled than your competition and still get out competed, and you can be less skilled and drive them out of business nevertheless.

This is -why- it's objectively more risky to be an employer than an employee. That risk, however, is self assumed, and if we worry that we won't be sufficiently compensated for the risk, then maybe we shouldn't risk it. When we decide, like must of us do, to work for someone else, we're leaning on the fact that that guy rolled the dice and won. We're hitching our wagon to a winner, rather than risking loss ourselves. His being the lucky holder of a winning ticket, no matter how hard he worked to find one, does not justify -anything- at all....and looking at the rate of failure for business owners, even successful ones, it's actually difficult to say that the employees are the fools, as opposed to the employers, even if the employers do manage to come up aces at some point, with one of their (likely) many ideas.

[KUSA]

Who gets to decide that? Is there a standard that determines the amount or degree of "deserve" that someone gets?

Just use reason and a common sense standard of what constitutes fair.

Explain how this works. Use an example.

[Brian37]

While some of these polls have Trump ahead, most of them have Hillary ahead, and after they are averaged out, Hillary is beyond the margin of error.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-5491.html

And would you look at that, even the Fox poll has Hillary ahead.

[abaris]

This is -why- it's objectively more risky to be an employer than an employee.

The highest paid employers don't take any risks at all in this day and age. The owner of a corner daili or a convenient store takes risks. Someone starting with a new project may take risks. CEOs of shareholder companies don't. They get paid, no matter what. Even if they run their company into the ground. That's a stark reality that has been put to the test in 2008. And that's also where our system shows to be entirely and fundamentally perverted.

[The Grand Nudger]

CEO =/= owner.  Forgive me for being unclear by using the terms employer and employee. Those shareholders, in your example, would be the owners...and they assume the risk the CEO is smart enough not to. Probably has something to do with him knowing himself. I'd liken a poor CEO to an employee with his hand in his employers till.

[Brian37]

CEO =/= owner.  Forgive me for being unclear by using the terms employer and employee.  Those shareholders, in your example, would be the owners...and they assume the risk the CEO is smart enough not to.  Probably has something to do with him knowing himself.  I'd liken a poor CEO to an employee with his hand in his employers till.

Lets not get into blaming the shareholders, that is not the same type of ownership as a single person or single family owning something, that "ownership" is more like buying poker chips at a casino. I'd only agree that the CEO is not only rigging the bet against the players but also fucking over the poker chip holders as well.

Lets call investing what it is, legalized gambling. The investors are buying into the game. It's because of deregulation and 30 years of big money writing it's own laws that the insiders get away with fucking over both the consumer and investors.

[abaris]

I'd liken a poor CEO to an employee with his hand in his employers till.

Only that this kind of employee gets away whereas the other ones get fired and/or sued for taking out 50 cents. I've yet to see any high ranking screwup at court or at the very least pay back what they lost out of their own pockets.

[Minimalist]

CEO =/= owner.  Forgive me for being unclear by using the terms employer and employee.  Those shareholders, in your example, would be the owners...and they assume the risk the CEO is smart enough not to.  Probably has something to do with him knowing himself.  I'd liken a poor CEO to an employee with his hand in his employers till.

One of the big problems is the whole "stock option" system of rewards.  It gives those corporate officers every incentive in the world to manipulate the stock price for their own benefit.

[Brian37]

CEO =/= owner.  Forgive me for being unclear by using the terms employer and employee.  Those shareholders, in your example, would be the owners...and they assume the risk the CEO is smart enough not to.  Probably has something to do with him knowing himself.  I'd liken a poor CEO to an employee with his hand in his employers till.

One of the big problems is the whole "stock option" system of rewards.  It gives those corporate officers every incentive in the world to manipulate the stock price for their own benefit.

Unfortunately dems for far too long have allowed the GOP to paint us as anti private sector and our politicians as a result stupidly try to compete saying "we aren't commies". The result of 30 years of playing their game and allowing them to control the narrative has gotten us nothing. Dems need to stop playing that game.