Is capitalism ruining society or lifting it up? Vote now and let your voice be heard!
✍️ Share your thoughts in the comments, but remember to keep it civil, no matter how heated the debate gets! Let's hear your opinions!
Yes, capitalism is the engine of progress that has created wealth and improved lives around the globe.
No, capitalism exploits the masses, concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, and causes social and environmental destruction.
compensation of CEOs at the 350 largest publicly owned U.S. firms
lol ok so it's horseshit then isn't it.
They are taking the extreme outliers of the largest companies in the world and presenting it as "ratio of CEO-to-typical-worker compensation".
@trapper: JFC stop simping for CEOs. I know quite a few CEOs and not one of them has a total annual package of $200k. If you believe that you're being wilfully ignorant.
I know quite a few CEOs and not one of them has a total annual package of $200k
How many of them earn 399 x the average wage? :roll:
You think that is equitable pay based on effort or contribution?
I think it's not my business to decide what one person pays another person with their own money. Why do you think that is your business?
@1st-Amendment: Firstly, because we live in a society. We get to elect people to impose rules. For example, one of those rules is you pay tax that is used to provide benefits that may not necessarily be to you personally. others rules we collectively decide are wage levels, employment standards, health and safety and a million other regulations. You would have to be smoking crack if you think Australia is a free-for-all capitalist economy.
Secondly, I'm relying to an earlier comment that socialism is unfair due to equal pay for different effort. If we ignore the fact that the statement itself is incorrect (that socialism pays everyone the same), I'm simply pointing out that this disparity between effort and income also occurs under capitalism and evidence suggests to a far worse degree (I mean look where wealth is concentrated globally). The claim that remuneration is based solely on "effort" under capitalism is false, or at least it's only true in general sense.
Thirdly, I don't support socialism. I also don't support rampant capitalism like they have elsewhere which seems to be significantly based on exploitation of lower income workers. I mean it's like claiming slave owning cotton plantations prior to the US civil war are better because they can out compete plantations with paid staff. Well what an amazing revelation… exploiting people is profitable.
You would have to be smoking crack if you think Australia is a free-for-all capitalist economy.
You would be smoking crack to claim something that never happened, also known as a strawman…
this disparity between effort and income also occurs under capitalism
True but the key difference is that one is by choice and the other is by force. Which do you prefer?
and evidence suggests to a far worse degree
Please show this evidence.
The claim that remuneration is based solely on "effort" under capitalism is false
I re-read the thread and didn't see anyone make that claim. Effort is better rewarded in a free market, but there are always exceptions. Under socialism effort is NEVER rewarded, so the only possible result is less effort which then causes lower productivity and a poorer nation.
You never quoted the post you replied to, but I assume is was treekangagaroo's post about motivation. Profit motivates far more than a gulag. We know this because the 20th century was a real world experiment that quite clearly showed which works best.
I also don't support rampant capitalism
I always see people make up phrases like 'rampant capitalism' as if it means something. It's like they know that capitalism works better than socialism but can't force themselves to accept it so have to make up a word to make it sound bad.
Capitalism just mean private means of production, ie LG and Sony make TVs and Honda and BMW make cars instead of the government. Would you prefer government made TVs and cars?
It also just means free trade so that when I want to buy and sell stuff, me and the other party decide between ourselves the terms of the transaction without outside interference. That is all it is, who doesn't want that?
significantly based on exploitation of lower income workers
'Exploitation' implies some sort of measure of 'fairness'. Who gets to decide that?
Under capitalism, both parties decide and agree. Under socialism, the government decides and you suck it up. Which do you think is fairer?
I mean it's like claiming slave owning cotton plantations prior to the US civil war are better
It absolutely isn't because a slave by definition isn't entering into a contract by free choice. This comment leads me to believe that you don't understand what capitalism actually is.
Did you ever notice how all the capitalist nations were also the first to abolish slavery? And a lot of the rest of the non-capitalist world still practices it?
Free markets are built on the idea of individual liberty and freedom of expression. It is the very principle that lifted the most humans out of poverty and oppression.
Well what an amazing revelation… exploiting people is profitable.
If we assume that be 'exploit' you are referring to involuntary contracts, that is far more prevalent is less free markets.
It's funny when people try to show an example of socialism that is actually exactly how capitalism works.
He never turns up to work but he gets paid no matter
He gets sent to the gulag, that's what happens.
Refusing to work is not an option.
@trapper: So no productivity loss in countries other than capitalism ? That should be the best option then
@treekangagaroo: No, as it turned out the opposite happened.
Millions marched off to the gulag and still the productivity was terrible.
@trapper: I don't support both, ideally it should be a mix of both imho. That's why I am more interested in compassionate capitalism
Those who invest should still make money as an incentive but employees should get a fair pay
Capitalism with a government that enforces equitable fiscal and social policy.
Don't let the poor get too far behind. Don't let the rich get too far ahead. Checks and balances.
Amen!
The problem is that every nation is unique. There's no one-size fits all.
In most cases, to get adequate policies for checks and balances, you need a heavy mix of Communism, Socialism, Technocracy and Capitalism. So at that point, it becomes inconsistent to call that system Capitalism+ since it could just as well be called Socialism+ or any other moniker. It might be semantics, but for some reason this is important.
Case in point: Democracy in North Korea
Don't let the poor get too far behind. Don't let the rich get too far ahead. Checks and balances.
So let's test this hypothesis with a real world example:
Jeff Bezos starts out as a average punter. He builds a business, hires thousands of people and they all make a decent living and for his hard work and effort Jeff gets rich. According to your plan, the government steps in and says 'you have too much money, we're taking it off you'?
Jeff now doesn't have funds to grow his business and it stagnates. Had he been allowed to continue he would grown his business and hired over 1 million staff. All people being employed and paying taxes, and buying things. So under your plan there's a million less employed people.
Your example is precisely why socialism sucks. In an effort make things 'fair' it just makes things worse. There are less opportunities, less jobs, which means lees tax revenue and a lower standard of living all around, then the death spiral kicks in.
We aren't guessing at this, it is exactly what happened every time it was tried. Learn some history and try not to repeat those mistakes.
All that is left is Cannibalism .. i'm trying to find s(auces)ources.
My best guess is that human tastes like pork. So I suggest apple, hoisin and sweet and sour.
In that case I suggest throwing it in the bin, and eating something else.
Australia isn't capitalist.
Perhaps the people downvoting can have a think about how much they pay when going to the doctor, or the hospital. Whether their childcare fees are subsidised. Whether they will still be getting money if they lose their job. Where does this money come from?
Taxes. Guess who make billions and pay very little taxes?
Taxes. That come from other people. A mix of capitalism and socialism. How the (piss poor) government (ineffectively) taxes corporations is not my fault, and doesn't make the "social services" any less social.
@brendanm: Socialism is an economic system where the workers own the means of production. Now name me one company or workplace in Australia where that's the case?
@consume: There are many co-operatives in Australia, especially in the dairy and meat industry. But in general, no, there aren't many in comparison to private ownership.
@Conformist: That's awesome to hear. Also both our names start with con, which is what capitalism does lmao
@consume: That's some illuminati style thinking brother. Keep up with connecting more dots, we may be onto something haha
Perhaps the people downvoting can have a think about how much they pay when going to the doctor, or the hospital.
Having a few shitty socialised services does make the entire country socialist, hence the neg. The money used to fund these services comes from private industry, so Capitalism is footing the bill for all of it.
What do you think would happen we had less free markets? You don't have to guess, just go to Cuba and see for yourself. I'll warn you, it ain't pretty…
Having a few shitty socialised services does make the entire country socialist
I never said it did.
@brendanm: You:
I never said it did.
Also you :
Australia isn't capitalist.
Australia is capitalist because almost all production is privately owned and run. The only other option is Socialist, which it clearly isn't.
Is there another option I have missed?
@1st-Amendment: Lol, saying something "isn't capitalist" means that I said it "is socialist". That's some wild interpretation.
Lol, saying something "isn't capitalist" means that I said it "is socialist".
Well I asked you what other options there are. Production is either free or centrally controlled, what other options do you think there are that I haven't covered?
That's some wild interpretation.
It's actually quite logical. With two options, if it's not A it means it has to be B. And of there is a C option, then it hasn't been presented.
@1st-Amendment: There are more than 2 options. However, if you chose to read on, I stated what I think. Feel free to read it, or not.
There are more than 2 options
Yet you can't name them here…
I stated what I think
A link would be useful…
Sorry, I put in the same amount of effort as you did.
Once again you are demonstrably wrong.
It is all there in black and white. You asked questions I answered them. I asked questions you ran away.
You can answer the previous question to keep the discussion going or avoid it because you are out of ideas. It's clear to all which path you are choosing…
Once again you are demonstrably wrong.
Not at all. I answered your questions 2 or so posts down from the comment you replied to. You were obviously in such a fit of economics induced rage that you didn't make it down that far
Not at all. I answered your questions
Where exactly? Post a link, it's easy to do, even a child could do it…
Even a child could follow the directions I gave above.
For someone who claims to be on the side of science you seem to not even have a grasp of the very basics.
Here's a primer for those who never finished high school: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
@1st-Amendment: Man you are lazy. It is a couple of comments down from the post you replied to. If that's too hard, I honestly don't care.
Man you are lazy.
You are the one the that can't cite your own claims.
It is a couple of comments down from the post you replied to
The dog ate my homework. Got it.
which type of capitalism are you asking about?
I might support one, but not another… I dont want to necessarily blanket support all of them with your vague question :)
Define the one you support
Yes, but it should be controlled by socialism. Companies and people should be able to make as much money and they want, but they should also pay an increasing tax rate that goes towards benefiting all people and especially people with greater needs.
Russia has a system close to pure capitalism and life is miserable for most people, though better than under communism. Live in China under communism was miserable for most people, but the Party has twisted communism into a system that hurt at first but now is giving everyone in China a pretty good future, more like socialism now. And the US has a mix of unfeigned capitalism and socialism, their patchwork system providing healthcare and other basics for the poor is actually quite significant, pretty much holding the country together.
So I think capitalism can be a grand thing, but only if the richer you get the more you pay the country as a whole. The best of both worlds. Even with a 90% marginal tax that you couldn't worm your way out of, billionaires would still enjoy being billionaires and it would buoy the country as a whole, world class healthcare, worldclass job creation for the masses, public transport that lets anyone get to the shops and spend money, universal income so there is always an economy to get rich off.
Yes, but it should be controlled by socialism. Companies and people should be able to make as much money and they want, but they should also pay an increasing tax rate that goes towards benefiting all people and especially people with greater needs.
So like Sweden? Let ikea rule the country but still give people decent healthcare?
yeah Sweden seems like a swell place to live, sure why not. I have something from Ikea in every room of my house already.
If you tax the rich extremely they'll leave the country. How will you combat that? Just straight up rob them instead?
Progressively taxing income disincentivises greater success. And giving everyone free stuff causes massive inflation.
How do expect society to look after a few generations of fostering unproductive people to reproduce as much as they like? You'll make everyone more equal in that they'll all be poor.
Let them leave. I'll gladly take their place as one of Australia's billionaires. If a billionaire has a ten thousand factory workers but they are all making minimum award, then they can't be all that productive because they aren't rich. So get rid of the factory workers, the billionaire doesn't need them, their low value butts contribute nothing to society because they are not rich! And get rid of the minimum wage and pensioner consumers who buy the products the factory produces, the billionaire owner of the factory doesn't need them because they don't contribute as much to society because they aren't rich like him!
The billionaire doesn't sit in a seat which makes them a billionaire — they don't leave it behind for someone else to sit in. They'll take their capital out of the country and the divestment will cause jobs to be offshored.
Your next comments are sarcastic, but they're actually somewhat accurate. Society doesn't need unproductive people. But politicians aren't willing to tackle the issue because unproductive people are (and will be) a large constituent of the voter base.
"Let them leave" Or Make them pay (more)
Make them leave?
Pay them to leave?
Deport them?
Anyway it's too late. America has colonised us intellectually,militarily,politically and ideologically.
Pretty soon we'll be the US war machines nukes dump. Just around the corner is an announcement to 'fast track' US nuclear subs parking up into our ports. The govt has dropped multiple hints in the last few days. Rupert will be running fear-mongering BS about S China sea activity to mesmerise the sheeples
Please don’t tell him that the 1% actually pays about 60% of all taxes generated..
He’d lose his mind
How much wealth do they have? You’d lose yours if you have one
The more wealth one has the more options there are to create further wealth. Should the benefit of being born before someone else, or born wealthy be entrenched and rewarded forever?
The argument that taxes should be flat does not reward the 'hard worker' the hard worker is the one who is beginning at a disadvantage. Flat taxes reward those who already own the most wealth
If you tax the rich extremely they'll leave the country.
Yeah, this was the Liberals "we can't tax the mining companies too much or they'll go overseas to dig up Australian resources over there" nonsense. They're here because they want to be here.
Australia has a variety of reasons to stay (climate, stable government, economy) - those are also factors for where the rich choose to park their catamarans.
I'm not advocating a "extremely means 99%" or whatever slippery slope argument is on standby but "we need to be nice and competitively tax less than other countries" is an argument made by the rich to try to trick economies into a race to the bottom on tax rates.
Then you end up with those ridiculous "we sell products in Australia through our Irish marketing company based in Holland but incorporated in Delaware" Frankenstein arrangements - and everyone loses … apart from the rich.
Username checks out, however ;)
I voted yes, but ultimately I wish people would force economics to give them a better deal.
Britain wasn't a socialist when it forced the Beatles to pay 90% tax nor was the US when it had a higher minimum wage than Canada and France.
Despite what you think applying a little financial pressure to those better off than you won't cause the world to fall over nor will it kill ambition or aspiration. Equally important the monetary system does not operate like a household budget: there are physical constraints but it's pretty flexible and is meant to make the world a better place for people.
Buffet was right when he said, “there's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning.”
Picking a modern example, rent caps or reducing tax concessions to landlords aren't socialism Albo!
I support it. It helps identify the beginning of sentences.
Don’t forget proper nouns!
like they/them?
…?
You don’t know the difference between proper nouns and pronouns?
It's good when you're the one profiting from it - bad when you're not.
What percentage of the population is on which side?
Well they're called the 1% for a reason right?
My point exactly 😉
@jjjaar: One of the reasons Capitalism runs blatantly is because of fiat currency.
Stepping off the Gold Standard meant that accountability was dismissed. That's why the 1980s Recession happened, and we've only been getting worse from there. And this isn't unique to Capitalism, Communism can abuse its system using fiat currency too, it's just that Capitalism has a wider affect (multination vs single-nation inflation).
If you have a look at Russia's economy, their currency tanked after the start of the Ukraine War. It was mostly due to the West Allies creating sanctions and attacking them fiscally. In all likelihood Russia should have plunged down to zero. But they didn't, it resisted, then it sprung back up. Why?!? It's because they still have resources to sell, and the Russian Federation changed their currency to say it was backed by their Gold Reserves. This meant foreign nations still had trust in the transaction, and want/need to exchange for their resources.
We truly are lucky in Australia, and the same rings true for the Nordic Countries. But this isn't by some accident. We need to resist following the footsteps of USA, and we need to resist following the footsteps of Cuba.
@Kangal: Moscow's anti-crisis measures — such as hiking rates to 20% helped to prevent a wide-spread recession.
A strong ruble hurts Russia by eating away at its income from oil and gas exports, which feeds into around 45% of its federal budget.
Kremlin wanted to peg the ruble to the price of gold before the war. They were buying gold quite intensely prior to the war. Now they are getting rid of their reserves in order to protect the economy.
Capitalism is the best system for humans
The only problem is it doesn't know how to stop
And the things that make it to stop typically causes global chaos and destruction temporarily…
…until the system somewhat resets itself and capitalism can flourish again
Can’t be stopped, needs to be checked.
And it’s 100% running unchecked right now.
Our government’s are all bought out.
The onus is and always have been on us general public to stay informed and make informed decisions. That’s the real issue, everything else is just a symptom of it.
"And it’s 100% running unchecked right now."
I don't agree - we've hardly ever had more government intervention. A lot of it for good too:
- NDIS
- Welfare
- Min Wage
- Regulated Conditions
- Planning Regulations stopping totally free settlement of factories next to houses etc
- Safety Regulations x million in all sorts of industries
etc etc
Do you really think we'd have all these if the top end of town (1%) that can pay everything for themselves was entirely in charge?
Of course we wouldn't
Do you think those same people would pick Albo to run the show if it was all bought out?
Of course not
This would be called cronyism where the government is trying to control more and more of every day life.
@jazinger23: Whatever it is called, I don't really agree with people making sensationalist claims things are drastically out of control when in reality we are living fairly comfortably on a world scale… I mean, take a look at the 90%+ of poorer nations - we are really doing quite well. Why on earth would people want to make drastic changes!?
@MrFrugalSpend: If people living 60 years ago would see what we complain about now they would be rolling in their graves.
@jazinger23: It's not really cronyism BTW - Cronyism is when powerful people install puppets "the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualification"
Whilst I don't doubt some of that happens on all sides of politics….Like I said above, given this is a discussion on capitalism, if the wealthy capitalist corporations always had their way, we'd likely always have a Liberal government as the majority of big business capitalists support the conservatives.
The things I listed above are things clearly done to win votes in a democratic election, not cronys supporting the big business people that funded them into politics, unless we are talking about union or special interest groups that funded people into power… but given they are social agendas, it's not really relevant to the topic at hand being capitalism. So its not really cronysim just because the government is increasing its intervention - that is somewhere on the sliding scale towards socialism.
@MrFrugalSpend: You will find that has gone the other way.
Big business now support the left because they realise they can just virtue signal their way to looking like the good guys without actually doing anything.
Have a look at the last 4 out of 5 usa presidents and tell me they werent puppets.
@jazinger23: If that were true, and to some extent it would be (certainly more than it used to be), it would show that even in a capitalist economic system, we are getting good social outcomes due to our democracy, because big business are at least on face value (virtue signalling) supporting social agendas, meaning these policies are getting introduced at the government's level in some part due to capitalist forces supporting them… i.e. in the court of public opinion, because we are wealthy enough to do so, customers/investors will vote with their money and not support businesses who don't support the agendas they are interested in…. (hence all the green virtue signalling etc).
@MrFrugalSpend: Don't confuse social policies with socialism .. Social policies have been around since before feudal times. They were brought about in the early times to stop the chance of the lower classes from rising up and taking over the establishment.
You can always have social policies in a capitalist economy because there will always be people that arent always able to help themselves eg people with disabilities .. those with no family support etc.
@jazinger23: All I mean to say is, even privately owned corporations run for profit these days with ability to get reviewed, named and shamed on social media etc, means they don't go completely unchecked… even if virtue signalling, they are doing it for a reason, because it could hurt their bottom line if customers leave… the leaders/owners have something to gain by doing so. Similarly, a lot of funds these days won't invest in corporations that aren't green or don't have corporate social responsibility policies…. we then vote in politicians who support regulation that also means they don't go completely unchecked…. so there's 'some' power to the people in terms of what is popular opinion, that organisations want to respond to in their CSR statements etc, in a capitalist market system.
Sure it's not socialism as in complete government / society ownership of all resources, but that doesn't really fully exist basically anywhere in the world these days, everyone uses capitalist markets to varying extents, some are just more 'state capitalism' than others, some have more taxation and government programmes than others.
So it depends on what brand of socialism people are talking about, there's not a unified theory / model, most think about macro full government control, but at the other end of the scale on a more micro-level, as in worker ownership of an organisation, but I struggle to even differentiate that from capitalist markets because there are models in the capitalist economic system for that too - partnerships, cooperatives, employee share schemes etc - the organisation still acts in a capitalist market for the interests of those working there when dealing with others outside that organisation… but creates practical management issues - how do you start an organisation, grow it - e.g. if you have an idea (e.g. you invented the iphone back in the day, but we run socialism), are you going to split it evenly with every new apprentice you take on? What about control, can the first two people you hire vote you out of the organisation you invented? What about those what work part time due to family commitments? What about in a downturn, can anyone be laid off or it just all goes broke? Not everyone may want to work for an ownership stake rather than guaranteed return - I know people offered to buy into business they've worked for but turned it down in favour of flexibility and just being paid a guaranteed hourly rate for they are asked to do, others that have worked for unprofitable businesses where they earn more than the shareholders, there's a whole range of scenarios that I can't even think how they would work in a completely collectively owned organisation… ideally you still need rewards for seniority, expertise/skills, effort, and creativity… so you still need leadership… I'm sure there are theoretical models, I don't know enough about them to know how that would even work.
@MrFrugalSpend: I have tried to find actual evidence of so-called socialist worker co-operatives yet all i end up finding is company structures that people buy into. You buy into a shared ownership of the company and when you want to leave someone has to buy you out. This is very capitalistic .. Australia has rules about worker cooperatives ( https://employeeownership.com.au/coops-mutuals/worker-cooper…) however you have to buy into them.
@jazinger23: Yes I know someone who participated in a co-op for a long time… we always considered it as him working for himself… but none of them ever did too well out of it really, made a very modest wage equivalent. Was common in various primary production forms at one time.
Unfortunately I don't think we will solve the world's problems - this topic has been debated globally for a long time and it seems no system is perfect …but I don't mind talking about it and hearing other's views!
@MrFrugalSpend: In about 120 years we have gone from being generalists .. eg worked on farms with livestock and growing food, building our own shelter/houses and fixing most things ourselves
to being specialists in one or a very few areas (look at the various number of tradies you need to call today to build a house ).
This specialisation has helped people with tradeable skills prosper greatly however it has show in the last few years how disruption to the pipeline pushes the costs of things that we can't or do not want to do ourselves.
@jazinger23: true the specialisation has helped us become more efficient, we've had a golden age of prosperity - its got to cycle back down from time to time and yes it has made everything a bit more fragile in a way as all the stripping down of unnecessary generalist skills, stockpiled resources means we get everything 'just in time' from the most efficient sources… disruptions to that ripple globally.
No matter what the dollar figure says, there will always be inflation, we still live far more richly than most 120 years ago - but we've got to tighten up a bit as resources aren't unlimited - we can't just consume all available land and burn all the fossil fuels like we've been doing over those 120 years. Everything in moderation, cycles, can't have too much of a good thing, checks and balances. Always the way
@jazinger23: The other was /is a Muppet.
(BTW by definition, using the term virtue signalling is in fact virtue signalling)
To a degree, sure, why not? I mean, I've never lived in a society that leans more socialist or communist so I can't say if I'd be happier living in one or not. There are days where I really can't be bothered working, and there are days where I'm excited to go to work.
IMO no economic model is perfect. Why? Because IMO humans are easily corrupted by wealth and power.
It also depends on what the end goal is. Do you want wealth to only go to the people who've work hard (and even then, people who work hard don't always receive massive amounts of wealth) or do you want wealth to be more evenly distributed amongst society to make things fairer? Because these are features of the a pure capitalist and pure communist society.
On top of that, humans will morph their economic model to suit them and cherry pick features for their own interests. What do I mean by this? Well, business cycles are an inherent feature of capitalism. This means that over time there are booms and busts, and as a result recessions are a built-in feature of capitalism. But guess what? Capitalist societies don't want recessions so they do whatever they can to prevent them, such as opening the door for immigrants so they can bring both their money and demand into the economy in the hope that a recession can be prevented, or by printing silly amounts of money that — on top of getting given to the likes of Gerry Harvey — devalues the currency and ultimately hurts the poorest in society. In capitalism, if a business is mismanaged it should cease to exist. Period. You stuff up, you pay the price, no more business for you. But this doesn't really happen does it? Businesses are bailed out by the government. The airlines were bailed out. Banks have been bailed out (overseas anyway). This has led to the popular phrase "privatise the profits and socialise the losses".
There is no perfect model and blindly choosing one over the other (which I can imagine is borne out of some sort of zealous patriotism most of the time) is foolish and ignorant. Some of the most liveable countries on the planet such as Norway and Sweden employ a mixture of both capitalist and socialist ideologies. We do it here; we are not a pure capitalist society. If we were, Centrelink and Medicare wouldn't exist. Freeways wouldn't exist. Public schools wouldn't exist. Public hospitals wouldn't exist. Hell, OzBargain might as well be a paid service. How many pro-capitalists out there ignore these facts? At the same time, we are not purely socialist or communist either. If you work hard, you can increase your salary. If you come up with a new idea and build an MVP you have a shot at realisable wealth.
Eventually though all of this begs the question; could humans be happy and satisfied if money didn't exist? It would be hard to go from the lifestyle we have now, i.e. where we experience constant dopamine hits as a result of instantly gratifying ourselves 24/7, to going back to tilling the land, pumping water from the ground (or carrying it in buckets from the nearby river) and telling stories over a fire for entertainment. It doesn't mean that happiness can't be borne from that kind of situation and ultimately happiness should be a goal that everyone strives for. If we lived in that kind of society, where fossil fuels weren't burnt for electricity or to get from point A to B, then I don't think anyone who knows anything about science can argue that it wouldn't be better for the planet (hint: carbon that was once underground, is no longer underground anymore).
And no, I did not use ChatGPT to write this comment.
Agree, there are elements of capitalism, socialism, which ideally are combined for a well running society.
But try telling that to the "YOU'RE IN MY CAMP OR YOU'RE THE ENEMY" brigade here….
Basically the smartest comment I’ve read yet, and I read every comment above yours!
@trapper: We focus on the average compensation of CEOs at the 350 largest publicly owned U.S. firms (i.e., firms that sell stock on the open market) by revenue. Our source of data is the S&P ExecuComp database for the years 1992 to 2020 and survey data published by the Wall Street Journal for selected years back to 1965. We maintain the sample size of 350 firms each year when using the ExecuComp data.1
We use two measures of CEO compensation, one based on compensation as “realized” and the other based on compensation as “granted.” Both measures include the same measures of salary, bonuses, and long-term incentive payouts. The difference is how each measure treats stock awards and stock options, major components of CEO compensation that change value from when they are first provided, or granted, to when they are realized.
The realized measure of compensation includes the value of stock options as realized (i.e., exercised), capturing the change from when the options were granted to when the CEO invokes the options, usually after the stock price has risen and the options values have increased. The realized compensation measure also values stock awards at their value when vested (usually three years after being granted), capturing any change in the stock price as well as additional stock awards provided as part of a performance award.
The granted measure of compensation values stock options and restricted stock awards by their “fair value” when granted (Compustat estimates of the fair value of options and stock awards as granted determined using the Black Scholes model). For details on the construction of these measures and benchmarking to other studies, see Sabadish and Mishel 2013.
But on a more general point, you would have to be completely out of touch with reality to not realise executive remuneration is completely out of control. Base taxable income is a poor measure of the full remuneration package.
https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/leaders/how-much-ceos-a…
"2. Are CEOs being paid less than before?
Fixed pay is increasingly becoming a shrinking part of a CEO’s pay, particularly for the top 100 CEOs.
Over the 10 years to FY21, the average ASX 100 CEO fixed pay had fallen by 0.8 per cent per annum, the Australian Council of Investors report found. There are now no CEOs in the top 100 who receive fixed pay above $3 million.
But it certainly does not mean they are being paid less. Investors have just increasingly pushed for a focus on variable pay to ensure CEOs are paid more in line with a company’s performance. The concept of variable pay has been developed over years by consultants, accountants and experts to offer executives incentives.
That’s where bonuses come into the equation – and they have reached record levels."