Occupy Wall Street

[KSig RC]

The notion of "irreplaceable skills" in relation to the type(s) of skills that are rewarded with absolute top-dollar in the modern American economy is borderline laughable ... how many of the richest 50 or 100 Americans are doctors or laboratory researchers or Nobel winners?

With that said, I won't occupy shit - the only portion that carries weight with me is the notion of unequal/lack of opportunity in the United States. In fact, the best-rewarded "skills" appear to be "born rich" and "born white" (in that order), closely followed by "born male."

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The notion of "irreplaceable skills" in relation to the type(s) of skills that are rewarded with absolute top-dollar in the modern American economy is borderline laughable ... how many of the richest 50 or 100 Americans are doctors or laboratory researchers or Nobel winners?

So you don't find the technological vision of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to be an irreplaceable skill? Or the revolutionary intuition towards investment that Warren Buffett has to be an irreplaceable skill? The ability to think outside the box and redefine how the entire world interacts with each other a la Mark Zuckerberg isn't an irreplaceable skill? You're a fool if you don't think that the vision, determination and experience required to guide a Fortune 500 company to the top isn't an "irreplaceable skill".

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

So you don't find the technological vision of somebody like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates to be an irreplaceable skill? Or the revolutionary intuition towards investment that Warren Buffett has to be an irreplaceable skill? The ability to think outside the box and redefine how the entire world interacts with each other a la Mark Zuckerberg isn't an irreplaceable skill? You're a fool if you don't think that the vision, determination and experience required to guide a Fortune 500 company to the top isn't an "irreplaceable skill".

The plural of anecdote isn't "data" ...

You're a fool if you think 500 Fortune500 CEOs are a large part of the 3,000,000 that comprise the top 1%, to start. And second, you're ignoring the substance of my post almost entirely, in favor of weird single examples ... of course "business acumen" is a powerful skill, and I'm not saying those folks shouldn't be rewarded.

However, that skill is rewarded disproportionately in comparison with other skills, many of which people would argue are more "useful" in everyday life. Unless you want to argue cardiologist versus Facebook? Come on.

Additionally, it's not clear "Fortune500" CEOs aren't eminently replaceable - after all, the majority of those companies stay on the list year after year, even with turnover among executives, right?

You named a handful of revolutionary thinkers - that's not who I'm talking about at all, and I think that was clear. At no point did I fault CEOs for making huge money. If anything, I took issue with your language in relationship to market realities.

[DTD Alum]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The plural of anecdote isn't "data" ...

You're a fool if you think 500 Fortune500 CEOs are a large part of the 3,000,000 that comprise the top 1%, to start. And second, you're ignoring the substance of my post almost entirely, in favor of weird single examples ... of course "business acumen" is a powerful skill, and I'm not saying those folks shouldn't be rewarded.

However, that skill is rewarded disproportionately in comparison with other skills, many of which people would argue are more "useful" in everyday life. Unless you want to argue cardiologist versus Facebook? Come on.

Additionally, it's not clear "Fortune500" CEOs aren't eminently replaceable - after all, the majority of those companies stay on the list year after year, even with turnover among executives, right?

You named a handful of revolutionary thinkers - that's not who I'm talking about at all, and I think that was clear. At no point did I fault CEOs for making huge money. If anything, I took issue with your language in relationship to market realities.

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

Now if we want to talk about examples of greedy CEOs with abnormally large salaries we can. However in your post(s) you seem to be pushing the ridiculous attitude that those who are successfully wealthy are only there because they started wealthy. I think that's bullshit. They are there because of hard work and skills. Perhaps their status gave them opportunities that would be harder for others to obtain, but ignorance and disrespect as to what these people are bringing to the table is ridiculous.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

Now if we want to talk about examples of greedy CEOs with abnormally large salaries we can. However in your post(s) you seem to be pushing the ridiculous attitude that those who are successfully wealthy are only there because they started wealthy. I think that's bullshit. They are there because of hard work and skills. Perhaps their status gave them opportunities that would be harder for others to obtain, but ignorance and disrespect as to what these people are bringing to the table is ridiculous.

What about the other 2999900 in the top 1% though?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DTD Alum

Are you aware of how the majority of the people in the "top 50 or 100 Americans" are compensated? They are not given their billions. They own shares of stock in a company that is/was worth nothing (whether a failing company or a brand new one) and take the company to a place where suddenly each share is worth a shitload of money. Gates did it, the Waltons did it, Zuckerberg did it. It's capitalism. We live in a capitalistic society.

In addition, yes, that's who you were talking about. You questioned the skills of the top 50 to 100 Americans vs. those of a doctor or a Nobel prize winner. I refuted that by saying that yes, I did think the skills of those men were comparable.

OK, this explains the disconnect - I wasn't saying those "top 50 or 100" lacked skills at all, or that they are there because something was 'given' to them. I said they all had broadly or roughly similar skill sets (which you acknowledge yourself), and that the list completely lacked other, important skill sets that are often found in the smartest individuals in the world (who generally make lots of money, but not the "FU money" of the titans of industry).

Anyway, you make my entire point for me - if the skills are comparable to Nobel winners (which I'd say that, in terms of uniqueness and ability, is largely correct), then there's something endemic to the system that doesn't allow Nobel winners onto the list. Many scientists have "irreplaceable skills" as well, and aren't in the 1% at all. It's neither necessary nor sufficient, so it's bad language.

Also, don't lay "capitalism" out as an argument - it's reductionist at best, since government interference in the marketplace is one of the key issues for both sides here (and I think both sides are wrong, for whatever that's worth).

My argument was in 2 parts, which you have needlessly conflated. I'm not claiming the top 50 Americans got there by heredity. I AM claiming a large number of the top 3,000,000 (1%) Americans had advantages to get where they are. Many worked hard, too - the "lazy millionaire heiress" is not my target here.