The only thing that can be mustered here is the poor third world. — schopenhauer1

A summary of winners and losers of globalization: the winners are the global rich and Asia, the losers the middle classes of the West. They are squeezed between competition and indifference: competition of people who are able and willing to do the same jobs for a smaller wage, and indifference of their own rich compatriots towards their plight....The Western societies will then come to resemble what we currently see in Latin America: there would be rich people with incomes and pattern of consumption of the global top 1%, sizable middle class, but also significant number of people who are, in worldwide terms, relatively poor, with incomes below the world median. The Western societies will thus become much more heterogeneous even without a further increase in their own income inequalities.

And that's not to mention the fact that, in practice, capitalists are frequently shielded from the the very 'risks' they like to say they take on: though limited liability, massive world historical bails-outs as we have witnessed for the last decade, laws skewed to the almost absolute benefit of speculators like landlords, etc. When the most devastating global crash since the great depression happened in 2008, how many bank CEOs, who were personally responsible for it, got fucked? Not a single one. One single mid-tier French banker got thrown into jail, and that's it, Meanwhile, pensioners and homeowners got utterly rorted while investment funds gleefully bought assets on the cheap to add to their already inflated portfolios. When businesses fail, almost invariably, it isn't CEOs who suffer - it is workers. Capital protects capital. — StreetlightX

They will said, that they did these things.. They will say that if the workers who they exploited were clever enough, they would do the same, but they aren't so must sell the labor for an income.. — schopenhauer1

He is gracious enough to pay me enough to live. I get to go on vacation soon!". — schopenhauer1

CEOs/business owners provide incomes, healthcare, and even vacations for their employees. They can move to a new CEO/business owner's domain (business) if they want. — schopenhauer1

The basis for technology is businesses interacting with other businesses to gather the goods/services to create products that sell and sustain their workers. — schopenhauer1

The principle of voluntary cooperation, wherever found, but especially in trade, is morally sound. — NOS4A2

The involuntary and coercive cooperation produced by the regulatory and legal institutions are not. — NOS4A2

If a sack of rocks or a God-guaranteed business scheme would find a way to make people part with money, capitalism would reward it. You need to stop buying into the fairy tales capitalists peddle to dupe idiots into thinking they are worth anything at all, and pay attention the only thing the markets care about - profitability. — StreetlightX

Employees are happy or not with the relationship to varying degrees, sometimes loving it sometimes hating it, but there can be nothing wrong with the arrangement so long as it is one of voluntary contract and both parties hold up their end of the bargain. This is why I cringe whenever critics declare that one party to this contract deserves public scorn while the other deserves public protection.

The principle of voluntary cooperation, wherever found, but especially in trade, is morally sound. The involuntary and coercive cooperation produced by the regulatory and legal institutions are not. — NOS4A2

schopenhauer1, The CEO of a small tech company gets paid $2 million. The head developer gets paid $300,000. A mid-level developer and R&D personnel $150,000. The tech support gets paid $60-75,000. The sales people range from $70-$200,000. The people in the manufacturing get a range from $45-$85,000 depending on their position. Customer service and related personnel get $50,000. — schopenhauer1

there can be nothing wrong with the arrangement so long as it is one of voluntary contract and both parties hold up their end of the bargain. — NOS4A2

Finally, I'd like to bring comrade Bitter Crank into the conversation as he is a battle-worn cold war warrior that would probably add some interesting ideas to the mix. — schopenhauer1

Cool, thanks for ignoring literally everything I wrote - again. Good to know that you cannot read and talking to you is a complete waste of time because you will address not a single thing I wrote. — StreetlightX

There is exactly zero link, in capitalism, between "cleverness" and reward, or "risk" and reward for that matter. I'll say it again: capitalism rewards profitiability. Markets are not warm and fuzzy altruists: they don't care, not one single bit, about personal cleverness or risk: the only metric markets reward is profitability. Any capitalist worth their salt will tell you this. Fairy tales about "cleverness" and "risk" are a postiori fairy tales retroactively told by capitalists to justify what the market, utterly indifferent to these dumb human constructs, have already engaged in. If a sack of rocks or a God-guaranteed business scheme would find a way to make people part with money, capitalism would reward it. You need to stop buying into the fairy tales capitalists peddle to dupe idiots into thinking they are worth anything at all, and pay attention the only thing the markets care about - profitability. — StreetlightX

ow about a food truck driver that starts a restaurant and then a chain, and then franchises and becomes a multimillionaire? — schopenhauer1

He gets sales and connections and demand.. He even programmed the original code and created the first circuit boards.. He grows the business in his region.. expands to other markets across the world...He's a global company.. Sole proprietor.. — schopenhauer1

The order of causality needs to be reversed: it's not that capitalists are 'clever' or 'hardworking' or 'risktaking', and therefore they are rewarded. They are rewarded, therefore they are subsequently given the title, based on nothing but a tautological appellation, of 'clever', 'hardworking', or 'risk-taking'. Of course, there are plenty of clever, hardworking, and risk-taking people who are not so rewarded, on account of the fact that there is literally no link whatsoever between these things besides sheer after-the-fact contingency. On the contrary, there are a legion of stupid, lazy, risk-averse unremarkables running around with piles of cash. Profitability is not an index of any personal attribute; more likely it is an index of labor costs, monopoly, network effects, government regulation, investment flows, cultural and technical trends, and a whole host of utterly impersonal mechanisms which markets actually give a shit about. Compared to these factors, 'you took a risk' is about as relevant to markets as the color of a CEOs car.

Hell, it would be nice if capitalism did reward hard work and risk and innovation and intelligence. Then maybe the world would not be the crumbling, dying misery machine that it currently is. — StreetlightX

What the entrepreneur thinks is irrelevant, as is the rest of your entire post. We're done. — StreetlightX

CEO Schopenhauer is making 6.5 times what the head developer gets; 13 times what the mid-level developer and R&D personnel get; about 30 times what the average tech support gets; the CEO gets 40 times what the customer service people receive, and 23 to 45 times what the production people are making. The boss makes 40 times what customer service makes.

Both workers and stockholders are concerned about absurdly high executive salaries, because they reduce dividends and the wages of ordinary workers alike. Besides, over-paid CEOs do not necessarily perform all that well. Now, we don't know from wage figures alone how well this small tech company is doing. It may be that Schopenhauer is an industrial wizard and is making money hand over fist. It could also be that the company is burning through cash reserves like it was jet fuel. In general, though, everyone (except overpaid CEOs) likes to see reasonable wage levels, top to bottom. That seems to be the case here, though a reduction of... say $500,000 a year would not put our beloved CEO in line for food stamps. (You WILL reduce the caviar and champaign cocktail parties from weekly to bimonthly, however. We all have to make sacrifices). — Bitter Crank

First, working is not optional. No work, no money; no money, starvation. It's called wage slavery, So a work contract can be terrible but still have takers. BTW, most workers are not even covered by a contract; they are "employed at will" meaning they can be dumped at a moment's notice.

Second, the expectations of the two parties are totally dissimilar. The employer intends to exploit the workers to the maximum, the employees hope to preserve as much of their life force as they can.

Third, very little to no negotiation about the terms of labor are possible when a) there is a line of unemployed people waiting for a job; b) there is no union to give workers some leverage; c) Applying workers are not privy to information which would help them bargain--like, they don't discover what a shit hole a place is until after they are hired. — Bitter Crank

You need to get an essential relationship straight: It isn't the case that employers create jobs for workers. The fact is that workers create all wealth. If it wasn't for workers (the vast majority of the world's population) you could not turn so much as a dim bulb idea into reality.

Yes, we need bright ideas. Thank you for your service, but you owe your wealth to us. — Bitter Crank

people are getting paid enough to live comfortably and do those things mentioned earlier (BBQs, TVs, etc.) — schopenhauer1

What would you say to the people in that small business scenario who are content (enough) with their pay, vacations, and healthcare? To them, the hierarchy sustains. The capitalist class CEO has provided for them. — schopenhauer1

The work-folk will just say that they don't mind the arrangement as long as they are getting paid enough. Governments can fill in any gaps in between if necessary.. And here you have the standard liberal view rather than revolution and tearing down of the system. There is simply inertia created by people's wanting to simply get on with their lives without much thought to the systems that were created before them.

They think the current arrangement is "just" and "right" to impose on a new person born into this life. The injustice of it is lost on them. I'm just saying, despite your (assured) protestations, we have similar problems in this regard, even if we disagree.