Richest on the planet.

[Ryan Binns]

ihoecken wrote:

You will think that you wake up and leave the Matrix but it's just the dirty one you enter.

And to think I spent all of that time washing it... :rolleyes:

Ryan

"Punctuality is only a virtue for those who aren't smart enough to think of good excuses for being late" John Nichol "Point Of Impact"

[Warren Stevens]

norm wrote:

I'm surprised among the richest people on the planet so many comes from Software industry

High fixed costs + negligible marginal costs = a great business at high volume. Software is a volume business. If you can get large volumes, it's highly profitable.

norm wrote:

Factories workers are not exactly prospering...

low skill = low pay If you can go from never-heard-of-it to competent in the job in under a month, the pay is going to suck. That's just a fact of life.

[Dario Solera]

Warren D Stevens wrote:

low skill = low pay

0 low pay = low purchases 1 low purchases = low money transfers 2 low money transfers = barring economy 3 barring economy = low business volumes 4 low business volumes = employees fired 5 employees fired = low purchases GOTO 1 ;) ___________________________________ Tozzi is right: Gaia is getting rid of us. My Blog [ITA]

[Warren Stevens]

Dario Solera wrote:

0 low pay = low purchases

Only if company employees are the only people that purchase the goods. This is almost never the case. What is more likely is: 0 low pay = low cost goods 1 low cost goods = affordable for everyone 2 affordable for everyone = lots of sales 3 lots of sales = more employees hired 4 more employees hired = lower unemployment goto 3 Supply and demand determine what pay should be. Trying to force pay above this level results in higher unemployment. Basically it comes down to the choice: 1) Higher Unemployment and Higher wages for those who do get work. (e.g. Europe) 2) Lower Unemployment and market wages for everyone (typically lower for those at the bottom end of the scale) (e.g. U.S.) and the final question is: Would you rather be unemployed or working for a low wage?

[RandomMonkey]

Poverty wage employees + super highly paid execs = company without morals.

---

_

I've got a New Age attitude - @#&~ karma!

DWinLib - A neat little Windows wrapper

MEdit - A MIDI sequencer

_

[Warren Stevens]

RandomMonkey wrote:

Poverty wage employees + super highly paid execs = company without morals.

Why do you expect companies to have morals? The purpose of a company is to make profit (both the original purpose, and also the fiduciary duty in many jurisdictions). Expecting otherwise is like that MasterCard commercial where a couple on vacation leaves their expensive camera on a table in a bar for a few days, many people sit at the table and just leave it there, and then the couple happily come back and find it there. The commercial ends with the "if life were like that, you wouldn't need Mastercard" tagline. emphasis on "life's notlike that". Everyone tries to get paid the maximum amount possible. Is that wrong? If the "poverty wage employees" were really worth more, why don't they quit and get a new job? If the "super highly paid execs" are really worth less, why don't they shareholders replace them? The idea of a "moral" wage is bogus. If it's not, then why are you accepting a pay package that is a lot more than someone from (say) India who could do the same job as you. Are you immoral? I would say no. Would you? This cuts the other way too. Lots of people complain when Unions strangle companies. I think that's fair game too. Just union members looking out for number one. When everyone is out for themselves, the "system" will organize itself into the most efficient configuration, and in the end that's the best for everyone. Warren

[RandomMonkey]

Warren D Stevens wrote:

Why do you expect companies to have morals?

Because companies are only made up of people. People have morals. Are you going to tell me that you don't have any morals?

When everyone is out for themselves, the "system" will organize itself into the most efficient configuration...

Meditate upon the flaw in that logic. That flaw is that nobody has ever became rich without helping others. (I am not talking about inheritances.) People cannot simply be 'out for themselves' to become rich. They must work with somebody (and therefore 'help somebody besides themselves') to become rich. This points to the possibility that the system could probably become more efficient if everyone worked together whole-heartedly. This will not happen in an immoral setting. David

---

_

I've got a New Age attitude - @#&~ karma!

DWinLib - A neat little Windows wrapper

MEdit - A MIDI sequencer

_

[Warren Stevens]

RandomMonkey wrote:

Because companies are only made up of people. People have morals. Are you going to tell me that you don't have any morals?

Companies are just one of many "organizing systems" for people. Take a set of people, and put them on a baseball team. You expect them to maximize "fun", and have no regard for making money. Take the same set of people, put them in a company, you expect them to make money, with no regards for "fun" or (here is where you might not agree) for trying to figure out if they're getting paid too much. I don't agree that there is a "morally" acceptable wage for anyone.

RandomMonkey wrote:

nobody has ever became rich without helping others. (I am not talking about inheritances.)

Not true. What if I go out in my backyard and strike oil? Or invent something? These are large parts of the economy (past+present), and really don't make anyone else (significantly) richer.

RandomMonkey wrote:

People cannot simply be 'out for themselves' to become rich

Yes they can - but this doesn't exclude other people from getting rich. Do you think Bill Gates was out to make Paul Allen or Steve Balmer rich? No way! Bill was out to make himself rich, and they got rich too.

RandomMonkey wrote:

the possibility that the system could probably become more efficient if everyone worked together whole-heartedly.

Billions of dollars and tons of energy is put into advertising, so it would also be much more efficient if no one had to advertise either !?! The crucial flaw in all that thinking (and it's not a minor point) is who organizes it all? This is one of the key principles why communism fails, and capitalism is superior (although far from perfect): It's too complex. Having "everyone work together" requires massive central planning. The economy is just too complex with its trillions of inputs and outputs, and it turns out that trying to "plan it" actually makes it less efficient. Not more. What's the alternative? Have everyone self-organize themselves in the economy according to the rule "maximize my income". And this rule, even with all its massive inefficiencies and waste (like advertising and government lobbying) is still better than central planning. Like they say about democracy, it's not that "income maximization"/capitalism is

[RandomMonkey]

Warren D Stevens wrote:

RandomMonkey wrote: ...Because companies are only made up of people. People have morals. Are you going to tell me that you don't have any morals?

Companies are just one of many "organizing systems" for people. Take a set of people, and put them on a baseball team. You expect them to maximize "fun", and have no regard for making money. Take the same set of people, put them in a company, you expect them to make money, with no regards for "fun" or (here is where you might not agree) for trying to figure out if they're getting paid too much.

You are sidestepping the question here. I would expect the people in the company to have some regard for 'fun', though. When a job is no longer fun in any sense of the word, people usually quit or become quite bitter, and drive off other employees.

Warren D Stevens wrote:

I don't agree that there is a "morally" acceptable wage for anyone.

I have never said there is a 'morally' acceptable wage for anyone, either. I simply said (paraphrasing) that it was immoral for companies to pay the executives of that company an exhorbitant wage, while not paying the workers enough to survive. The 'actions', and not the 'wage' are the immorality.

Warren D Stevens wrote:

RandomMonkey wrote: ...nobody has ever became rich without helping others. (I am not talking about inheritances.)

Not true. What if I go out in my backyard and strike oil? Or invent something? These are large parts of the economy (past+present), and really don't make anyone else (significantly) richer.

You are wrong here. The person can only become rich if they sell that product to consumers, and enrich the consumers lives in some manner. The inventor or oil-striker 'helps' the consumer live the lives they want by offering them a product/service the consumer wants. If you try to state that Bill was simply trying to make himself rich, you are overlooking the major fact that Bill was also creating products that he sincerely believed would help the world. He thought computers would improve his life as well as the lives of the people around him, including Paul Allen and Steve Balmer.

Warren D Stevens wrote:

...Like they say about democracy, it's not that "income maximization"/capitalism is g

[Warren Stevens]

I'm not clear what you mean by:

RandomMonkey wrote:

The 'actions', and not the 'wage' are the immorality.

what is the immoral "action", if it's not paying the wage?

RandomMonkey wrote:

Bill was also creating products that he sincerely believed would help the world.

Don't believe the hype! Ask some DR.DOS or diskkeeper or Netscape (or...) employees how much Bill Gates cares about improving the world through Microsoft. Zero. Zero Kelvin. Making the world better was incidental to the purpose of Microsoft, which is to make money. And that doesn't take away from Bill as a person, who is the most generous person ever. which is exactly my point. Business = make money. Charity = giving it away. Bill Gates has the division very clear in his mind, and that's one of the reasons why he's so successful.

RandomMonkey wrote:

if all companies paid all their employees morally, in the 'action' sense I defined it above, our system could possibly become more efficient (better)

There are two huge problems with this, in the real world: 1) How do you determine a "moral" salary? 2) The total pot of money is the same, so paying higher wages to the "peons" will result in lower wages for the "superstars". What stops the "superstars" leaving to a place where they can make more? #2 is why the best and the brightest, in almost all careers, from around the world head for the U.S.

[RandomMonkey]

I'm not clear what you mean by:

The 'actions', and not the 'wage' are the immorality.

what is the immoral "action", if it's not paying the wage?

The action is that of offering jobs to the "peons" with a wage that the company knows cannot truly sustain the person, while giving extravagant amounts of money to the officers of the company. When a company does that, I will call that company 'immoral'.

Bill was also creating products that he sincerely believed would help the world.

Don't believe the hype!...

But don't forget my point, either. If you saw the world through Bill's eyes, I would bet you would find at least part of him that thought he was making something that made the world a better place. I am not talking about through the eyes of a Netscape employee, or another competitor he has crushed. I am talking about Bill himself.

if all companies paid all their employees morally, in the 'action' sense I defined it above, our system could possibly become more efficient (better)

There are two huge problems with this, in the real world: 1) How do you determine a "moral" salary?

A salary that the person can live on without being in poverty.

What stops the "superstars" leaving to a place where they can make more?

2. Beliefs :)

---

_

I've got a New Age attitude - @#&~ karma!

DWinLib - A neat little Windows wrapper

MEdit - A MIDI sequencer

_

[Warren Stevens]

RandomMonkey wrote:

I would bet you would find at least part of him that thought he was making something that made the world a better place.

You have to mentally separate the two cases: 1)making the world better as part of the business 2) choosing something that makes the world better, but comes at some cost to the business. Everyone will choose number 1 (why not?) as for people like Gates choosing number 2 - no way. I think you're giving Gates way too much of the benefit of the doubt for being altruistic. As unfortunate as it is, to be ultra-successful in business seems to require an almost pathelogical obession with winning at any cost (which is why Microsoft crushes competitors so absolutely on such a regular basis). To quote Ray Kroc (the man behind McDonalds): "If I ever saw a competitor drowning, I'd put a live fire hose in his mouth". To use the word "moral" in the same sentence as guys of this personality type would be a stretch.

RandomMonkey wrote:

What stops the "superstars" leaving to a place where they can make more? 2) Beliefs

"Beliefs" works in theory, but in practise (Cuba, North Korea, former USSR) it usually sounds more like "Believe in collective good. And, by the way, if you don't believe and try to escape we will kill you and torture your family". In summary (of the whole thing), I'd be happy if the world could work out like you suggest, but I think you really underestimate how many people really don't give a damn about their fellow man (I'd like to think I'm not one of those people). Maybe I'm just too cynical...