Random points:
My argument is that Christian Bale deserved a higher salary than many teachers because he satisfied a larger demand than those teachers. Bale entertained millions of viewers.....whereas one particular high school teacher may have taught maybe a thousand students if he or she's lucky.
I won't disagree that Christian Bale deserved a higher salary. But the degree is the part I question. The man made 20 million for about six months of sporadic work. Don't get me wrong, I love Bale and he's probably the most profound actor of today, which is why I used him as an example. But at the end of the day, he's an actor, and he entertains. The value he brings to the world through entertainment is still not equal to the value a teacher brings to a single student through education. Because some day, that student may just wind up being the next Christian Bale, and that teacher will have become a part of that legacy, and the legacy of who knows how many other people who went on to experience success.
So no, I do not measure someone's contribution to society based on how 'satisfied' that contribution made its 'consumers.' I measure someone's contribution based on how many lives that person has changed for the better. I mean, TDK engrossed me for a good solid couple of hours, right? Great movie! But compared to the lifetime of success which is owed to those who dedicated themselves to making me a better person? Should I really be comparing the two?
Does that mean I think teachers should make 20 million a year? No. But it does mean I have no problem with our government taking half of Bale's 20 million, while doing so responsibly and ethically, of course, being certain to reward achievement, and using it to increase the salaries of deserving educators...
I don't support anarchy ...and I understand our economy is a mixed economy, mostly capitalism with sprinkle of government regulation here and there. But our capitalism is the best system...it rewards freedom and allows people to get paid based on demand.
I agree that capitalism is fundamentally successful in a 'free market.' However, our 'free market' is in gridlock by special interests, lobbyists and greedy, unethical politicians and business people.
It's the government's job to protect its citizens from economic self-destruction. It is not in our country's best interests to allow pivotal contributors in our society to live in poverty while those who live flamboyant, spoiled lives offer nothing tangible in exchange.
The very reason Christian Bale is able to make 20 million is first, because he lives in this country, and second, someone took the time to mentor him into what he is today. In my opinion, he owes something back to those people.
I'm not advocating anarchy, and I'm not sure why that came up. What I am advocating, however, is that this free market must remain sustainable and beneficial to every hard-working American. In order to do that, we would have to establish what the monetary amount is that equals 'rich' in this country, and then tax the crap out of anyone who exceeds that figure. Not to the extent that it degrades a person's standard of living, but to the extent required to continue to provide the protections and services the government is EXPECTED to provide in accordance with the constitution, without the people who fill those positions feeling like they can barely put food on the table.
This argument, I've heard it millions of times thoughout school.....why does Arnold Swarzenegger get paid millions whereas a fire fighter only gets paid etc....to me that's whining. Because Arnold provides a service that more people collectively find valueable but also unique , which the other professions, despite how good they are, they supply is great, the workers are more easily replaceable.
That's not my argument, though. I have no problem with Arnold Schwarzenegger being paid more than a fire fighter. What I have a problem with is the fire fighter living paycheck to paycheck when he/she should be able to live a decent life in a decent house in a decent neighborhood. Does a firefighter need to live in a mansion like Arnold? No, but a house with a back yard would be nice...
I'd argue that a CEO of a company should be worth millions of dollars.....first off that CEO is typically the person who worked their asses off and built the company from the bottom to top.
Maybe a first generation CEO, but beyond that, no. CEO's are appointed. But I do understand your point if coming from the perspective of the founders of a company. Unfortunately, that's pretty rare nowadays, at least for the jumbo corporations that do pay millions of dollars to fat guys in suits.
Second, that if that CEO makes a stupid decision, thousands of people in industries could lose their jbos.
True, but that happens now with CEO's being paid what they are. Seems to me that if they aren't preventing that with million dollar salaries, maybe it's not really possible to the degree we fool ourselves into believing it is, and maybe we reduce the salary accordingly.
The idea that CEOs sit in a penthouse and get paid millions is false. They're paid to make an incentive to make brilliant financial and commercial decisions that will continue to keep the company afloat. If you have no incentive to make wise business decisions, you'll take stupid risks which might endanger company, endager thousands of workers and thousands who are investing capital into your business. And there may also be a chain reaction in other businesses as well.
So yeah, I do think CEOs should be paid lots of money.
I do as well, but there is a limit. While I do not believe government should regulate that, I do believe our politicians have a responsibility to talk about it with the American people. We as a nation need to understand what we're doing that is causing destruction in the lives of others. Get some of these outlandishly rich celebrities to 'adopt a teacher' or something and pledge an extra 20k a year to that teacher's salary for life. It's one written check.
Second, I don't believe in "luck" when it comes to succeeding in the industry.
I disagree. While inner drive and hard work are required to realize a goal, the opportunity must also exist. But there are many people out there who will *never* have the opportunities you and I have had. There are many people out there who have been shortchanged. And guess what - they are hard workers who love their children and this country.
Which means something isn't working the way it should. In this country, ALL who work hard and contribute to society should experience success.
Yes, you don't know the future, and certain parts of life is a a gamble. What separates successful people like Bill Gates, Buffett, Ross Perot ....from other not so rich...is that they were persistent. They didn't strike it rich the first time. They failed hundreds of times....their company was in jeapordy. I've read many biographies of successful people, the idea that some coin flip created their wealth is a myth....they were persistent in face of adversity and a crowd of cynics who doubted them. Their persistence pays of...
No. Bill Gates is an exceptionally intelligent man. He was born that way. Not everyone is born at a genius level. Bill Gates also got lucky due to the very premature state of computer software technology at the time of his arrival. Had he arrived 10 years later, you and I would not know who Bill Gates is. Not to say he didn't grab a hold of the opportunity that came his way. But he certainly wasn't entirely responsible FOR that opportunity coming along in the first place. He was born brilliant, had a great idea, and he was in the right place at the right time in his life. Period.
Think about it mathematically. Let's say you roll a die....and if it rolls a 3...you get paid millions.....anything else...you get nothing. If you continue to roll the die...the probability that it will eventually come up a 3 will approach 1/1.
Yes, I am a math/statistics nerd.
You're attempting to state that all people who try will eventually succeed. I disagree. I believe that is what our country stands for, but that that is not what our country currently is.
These people may have been "lucky"....in the sense they couldn't have predicted the exact moment or circumstance they would have been successful....but they tried and tried and tried again...which allowed them to eventually succeed. They went the extra mile most people don't....most people look at the world as a pack of cards.....so they don't bother trying..they make an excuse not to try, ..and they blame their lack of effort on others being evil, greedy, lucky....etc..etc..
Again, not everyone who tries and tries and tries ... makes it. Success stories are so profound and interesting to us when we hear a celeb or some CEO talk about how his/her circumstances unfolded for them to get to where they are, but those stories are not unusual. I talk to people all the time who work hard, and who have amazing stories (much like mine) about how they got to where they are. But not everyone who works hard to make an honest living and to reach to the next rung on the ladder has an amazing story of success...
Now, I support taxing...we obviously need taxes. But we should always decide first what service we are using that requires taxing...is this service absolutely necessary, will it create the desired result and no negative economic side-effect...before we go through with raising the tax. The problem is we don't do that nearly enough...we tax and use the government to solve every little private problem, under the banner of "fairness"
Agreed, but the problem isn't that we tax too much. The problem is that what we do tax is spent poorly, and taxes are raised even more to compensate for the incompetence of our government.
Still, when it comes right down to it, all of this is completely dependent upon decent, honorable politicians. I guess we can only dream...
Paying $10 of interest, rather than $180 of interest.....that's a no brainer.
