These are just statistics and don't apply to the actions of individuals.

I see facts but not how they show the claim in question to be wrong.

I see facts but not how they show the claim in question to be wrong. — Thorongil

Yes, you don't see it. That's the problem. It's a bit like an inkblot test. What does this tell us about you?

Tell me what I don't apparently see.

The implication is that paramedics are more valuable, and therefore ought to make more. The fact is simply that Sri and Gopi generate more actual monetary value through revenue for their services. In order for the paramedics to do the same, they'd either have to cost more, increase efficiency and volume of clients, or government subsidies based in taxes, off of the revenues of people like Sri and Gopi. Otherwise, where would it come from?

Fact:

CEO pay in the U.S. has grown exponentially since the 1970s, according to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), rising almost 1,000 percent compared to a rise in worker salaries of roughly 11 percent over the same time period (adjusted for inflation.)

It wasn't always this way. In 1965, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio in the United States stood at about 20-to-1, according to a 2015 report by the EPI.

But starting in the 1970s up through 2014, "inflation-adjusted CEO compensation increased 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth and substantially greater than the painfully slow 10.9 percent growth in a typical worker's annual compensation over the same period." — https://www.payscale.com/data-packages/ceo-pay

The implication is that paramedics are more valuable, and therefore ought to make more. — Wosret

This demonstrates that I have not set up a puzzle which is impossible to solve.

The fact is simply that Sri and Gopi generate more actual monetary value through revenue for their services. In order for the paramedics to do the same, they'd either have to cost more, increase efficiency and volume of clients, or government subsidies based in taxes, off of the revenues of people like Sri and Gopi. Otherwise, where would it come from? — Wosret

Why hasn't this happened? And don't you think that it's wrong that it has not, and that this is the norm, and that it has been so for a very long time? Don't you think that we need systematic reform?

See, the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer! Everyone gets rich, just the richer get way way way fucking richer.

See, the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer! Everyone gets richer, just the richer get way way way fucking richer. — Wosret

This.

Sapientia views these facts through a frame of theft, which isn't true.

I don't see how these facts illustrate that it's not fair that the owners of the Hinduja group have 16.2 billion while paramedics earn 37K.

You haven't analysed the contributions to society that the Hinduja group, through all of their businesses make or have made. Presumably, your paramedics need a lot of things, including phones, etc. in order to save lives. So society is all interconnected, the ones who do most for society aren't necessarily the ones who save lives directly, but rather the ones who are most responsible for the entire system functioning as well as it does - meaning the ones who play the biggest part. Paramedics may offer a lot of value, but they do so supported by a very large network, and, individually, only to very few people.

Wealth = Value x Quantity. If you deliver high value but to super few people, how can you expect to be wealthy? :s

See, the rich don't get richer and the poor poorer! Everyone gets richer, just the richer get way way way fucking richer. — Wosret

This.

Sapientia views these facts through a frame of theft, which isn't true. — Thorongil

The rich should not get way way way fucking richer. That is not right.

The rich should not get way way way fucking richer. That is not right. — Sapientia

Why? If the area under their value-quantity graph is much bigger, then of course they should get way way way richer.

I don't see how these facts illustrate that it's not fair that the owners of the Hinduja group have 16.2 billion while paramedics earn 37K. — Agustino

Of course you don't see it. That's exactly what I expected.

Because ideally, we want paramedics to be available for everyone, so that the first option of charging more, and being more speedy, especially focusing more on revenue rather than saving lives, wouldn't be healthy for the attentions, and ambitions of the paramedics, that isn't their job.

It is an extremely complex issue. Poverty has never been as low, it's also true that the difference between the rich and the poor has never been greater, and we're really beating that rock for more and more water, and eventually, it will no longer deliver. We could also just die of thirst now... but maybe, just maybe, later won't come...

Of course you don't see it. That's exactly what I expected. — Sapientia

No, it's just cause you're really not providing a reason why this is so. It may be so - I'm not saying that it definitely isn't, I haven't studied the Hinduja group to say it isn't.

You're just pointing to something and saying it's unfair without providing an analysis for that. You just decide, a priori, that it is unfair.

Why? — Agustino

Because it's not fair.

If the area under their value-quantity graph is much bigger, then of course they should get way way way richer. — Agustino

Yes, "of course".

I don't need no "value-quantity graph" to know right from wrong.

Sapientia views these facts through a frame of theft — Thorongil

Property is theft. Highly paid executives, receiving perhaps $40 to 100+ million dollars in compensation, are way way way more fucking thieves than the average workers. Especially since they frequently do not deliver greater values to shareholders, in proportion to their increased salaries. Boards of directors are, in general, families of thieves, so they approve these high salary packages.

The rich should not get way way way fucking richer. That is not right. — Sapientia

Why? What if the rich become rich because lots of people give them money? Who's to blame for the wealth inequality in that case?

Property is theft. — Bitter Crank

Settle down, Proudhon.

Highly paid executives, receiving perhaps $40 to 100+ million dollars in compensation, are way way way more fucking thieves than the average workers — Bitter Crank

What have they stolen?

You're just pointing to something and saying it's unfair without providing an analysis for that. — Agustino

I did that in the other discussion: the discussion that you created, and which this discussion is responding to. You saw it with your own eyes. This is an illustration of a prior point, and it's not the first. (Recall the example of the Premier League footballer).

This is really an instance where those on opposing sides are going to perpetually talk past each other. Sap thinks the rules of the game are not fair and should be changed, and so uses examples within the game being played as evidence. The other side sees this as an inevitable outcome of the game being played well; an unfortunate(if you're in the majority) outcome of an overall beneficial system.
Is there a bridge for this gap? Where's the common ground?

We have anti-trust laws to ensure that wealth and power aren't too concentrated within specific corporations. Could the same kind of laws be created for individual wealth and power? Would that be opposed to Enlightenment values?

The implication is that paramedics are more valuable, and therefore ought to make more. — Wosret

Of course, that's not the only implication.

Can anyone spot any more?

Paramedics, hospital cleaners, nurses, doctors, lab workers, public health workers, sanitation workers, food inspectors, sewer and sewage treatment plant workers all save lives by either treating disease, identifying disease, teaching the public how to stay healthy, or preventing disease by keeping cities clean. All these functions are critical services.

All of these jobs also pay way, way, way less than the CEOs of hospitals, food corporations, construction and excavation companies, bureaucrats at the top of civil services, and so on. CEOs do not save lives, and actually, they don't facilitate the saving of lives. Their job is to make sure that in commercial operations, they are as profitable as possible, and in government operations, making sure that corporations are not annoyed too much.

In general, highly paid topic executives and board members function as parasites in the bowels of companies which provide important services. These companies should be wormed regularly.

What have they stolen? — Thorongil

Wealth and services which workers produced. Executives do not produce. They are there to insure profitability for stockholders.

Wealthy stockholders, in turn, are not productive either.

I don't get it. If I start selling homemade brownies, and make enough money to hire a few people to help me, and then manage to sell half my company for £1,000,000, making me a millionaire, there's suddenly something unjust about this because paramedics are only making £37,000 a year?

We have anti-trust laws to ensure that wealth and power aren't too concentrated within specific corporations. — ProbablyTrue

Yes, the laws are on the books, but are honored in the breach fairly often. It may not be the case that one company, for instance, controls all television cable systems, but in fact a handful (like, two or three big ones and a bag of very small operations) control cable.

When you add in the cross direction of companies (called interlocking directorates) there is a practical monopoly for many industries.

That sixteen thousand million implies that you can't count either. No billionaires in your world anyway, just "thousand millionaires"... lame.

Wealth and services which workers produced. Executives do not produce. They are there to insure profitability for stockholders. — Bitter Crank

This falsely assumes the rich are not themselves workers or producers.

However, an olive branch: the notion of a legal obligation to make profit is a morally abhorrent notion. But I see nothing wrong with people making lots of money because people voluntarily give it to them.

I understand this, but my point is that society decided that concentrations of power were bad for the market/society so we restricted this, at least somewhat. Could the same argument be used for restricting individual wealth?

Why? — Thorongil

Because it's not fair.

What if the rich become rich because lots of people give them money? Who's to blame for the wealth inequality in that case? — Thorongil

Anyone who has the power to rectify the situation, but does not, is to blame.