At $84 million a year, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella is one of the tech industry's top earners

Its sick in a linear scale when you make 1680 X more then what the requirements of life ask for. For every dollar you have, its another dollar some one else does without. It also wreaks the economy for all people. A person with 84 million income DOES NOT buy 1680 times more toothbrushes, toilet paper, books, cars, houses, gas, pets, groceries, etc more then you or me.

Why are you envious of what others make? And who are you to state what it is what life requires? Are you a communist or something? How has this man being rich wrecked the economy for all people? It's funny that you deride this man for being rich, but probably voted for loudmouth pols who spout the same stuff as you who are as rich as if not richer than this person and incorporate policies that actually hurt people.
 
He should be paid 120,000 - 150,000 a year like normal VIP of executive corporate company. Thus keeping jobs there at Microsoft. It's a real shame they are paying him so much more to live beyond his means. That's why Microsoft Surface Tablets are outrageously price to keep this guy in the CEO chair to be happy with his high life style living!
 
Haven't there been CEOs that have basically sunk a company all the while getting huge bonuses and then just finding a bigger better position? I mean it isn't a new thing and sinking your company doesn't mean no job as long as you know people and all CEOs do.

Obama sank the economy and he got reelected. Whether he deserved it or not, if a contract is written saying you will make X dollars regardless how a company performs, is it more important to honor the contract or to wax indignant about what a person makes?
 
no one has gotten rich on hard work. Its based on luck. Right place, right time, right product/service. And wealth of 84 million is sick no matter how you rationalize it.

This view explains why surveys of millennials think the best path to becoming a millionaire is playing the lottery instead of working hard, saving and investing.

It has the added benefit of helping to justify sitting your parents basement and playing call of duty.

For every dollar you have, its another dollar some one else does without.
this is as incorrect as saying the sun revolves around the earth. The reason you can't buy a burger for $.25 like you could in 1922 is because there are more dollars out there today and it makes each one worth less. Meaning... in 1922 a dollar was worth 4 hamburgers, and today it doesn't even pay for bun. This is called inflation and if you want to learn about economics, it would be a good place to start. Checkout https://www.khanacademy.org/ and take some econ tutorials. It's all free too :)
 
Last edited:
so you are claiming you with each performance, you sound 100% the same each and every time? Will bet you the rest of your future earnings you are wrong.

Actually, depending on the piece, I can sound 100% the same for at least first 20 repetitions. This is, in fact, how I used to prepare for piano recitals. After that, muscle fatigue and instrument detuning (on an imperceptible level) start to set in. But, if we're going to use patently stupid arguments to demonstrate a point, the answer is an unequivocal yes: I can play any major, minor, harmonic, melodic, flat or sharp scale identically and indefinitely at 98bpm in accord with the rhythm established by the Grand Form. Alternatively, I could just play Yankee Doodle until we all kill ourselves with macaroni.

So, you are claiming hard work makes you rich... I know dozens of single moms who work 16 hours a day and they aren't rich. I know hundreds of people personally that work their *** of and they are not rich. I know of entire countries that kids work harder then you and me they are not rich either. How can you claim hard work makes you rich? Do you work hard? Are you rich?

It seems that you do not understand how hard work relates to economic outcome. Merely working X number of hours is not how a person increases their income or wealth. You must work both diligently and effectively relative to the market to increase in economic value (income). It has to do with economic merit, not naked effort. And this doesn't even begin to touch on household financial decision making.

He should be paid 120,000 - 150,000 a year like normal VIP of executive corporate company. Thus keeping jobs there at Microsoft. It's a real shame they are paying him so much more to live beyond his means. That's why Microsoft Surface Tablets are outrageously price to keep this guy in the CEO chair to be happy with his high life style living!

You haven't even skimmed Microsoft's 10-K statement, have you?
 
Actually, depending on the piece, I can sound 100% the same for at least first 20 repetitions. This is, in fact, how I used to prepare for piano recitals. After that, muscle fatigue and instrument detuning (on an imperceptible level) start to set in. But, if we're going to use patently stupid arguments to demonstrate a point, the answer is an unequivocal yes: I can play any major, minor, harmonic, melodic, flat or sharp scale identically and indefinitely at 98bpm in accord with the rhythm established by the Grand Form. Alternatively, I could just play Yankee Doodle until we all kill ourselves with macaroni.
I 100% guarantee you can not. You may perceive it as the same but it is indeed NEVER identical.
 
Why are you envious of what others make? And who are you to state what it is what life requires? Are you a communist or something? How has this man being rich wrecked the economy for all people? It's funny that you deride this man for being rich, but probably voted for loudmouth pols who spout the same stuff as you who are as rich as if not richer than this person and incorporate policies that actually hurt people.
I wish I could explain it in a way that was both eloquent and made sense but I am not here to teach, sorry.
 
It seems that you do not understand how hard work relates to economic outcome. Merely working X number of hours is not how a person increases their income or wealth. You must work both diligently and effectively relative to the market to increase in economic value (income). It has to do with economic merit, not naked effort. And this doesn't even begin to touch on household financial decision making.
I was speaking for the claim of "hard working makes you rich" which it clearly does not.
 
This view explains why surveys of millennials think the best path to becoming a millionaire is playing the lottery instead of working hard, saving and investing.

It has the added benefit of helping to justify sitting your parents basement and playing call of duty.


this is as incorrect as saying the sun revolves around the earth. The reason you can't buy a burger for $.25 like you could in 1922 is because there are more dollars out there today and it makes each one worth less. Meaning... in 1922 a dollar was worth 4 hamburgers, and today it doesn't even pay for bun. This is called inflation and if you want to learn about economics, it would be a good place to start. Che:)ckout https://www.khanacademy.org/ and take some econ tutorials. It's all free too

I do not know a single person who agrees with your lottery analogy. How many do you know have said this to you? I also am not sitting in my parents basement and do not even play xbox. I am 40, own my own house, have 3 kids, 20, 17, and 14, work (hard) on my 1400 acre farm (that is 100% paid for as well as all the farm machinery), and DO know the basic economy stuff and no matter how you swing your numbers, extreme income of a few hurts everyone. If you can't grasp the concept without "knowing economics" then you won't get it even if you study it. Its just plain old common sense.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could explain it in a way that was both eloquent and made sense but I am not here to teach, sorry.

You can't explain it rationally because the entire position is irrational. Nobody faults you for not attempting the impossible.

I was speaking for the claim of "hard working makes you rich" which it clearly does not.

Barring winning the lottery or having an oil deposit fortuitously appear on your property, becoming wealthy or "rich" requires hard work. Nobody here has suggested working hard, in and of itself, translates to high income.

You, on the other hand, have supported the demonstrably false position that high income is purely the result of luck.
 
You can't explain it rationally because the entire position is irrational. Nobody faults you for not attempting the impossible.



Barring winning the lottery or having an oil deposit fortuitously appear on your property, becoming wealthy or "rich" requires hard work. Nobody here has suggested working hard, in and of itself, translates to high income.

You, on the other hand, have supported the demonstrably false position that high income is purely the result of luck.

I did not claim this. quote me if you have to. Let me help you. "HARD WORK does NOT MAKE YOU RICH"

Funny how you just agreed with me and still somehow arguing about it? lol
 
I can't agree with you on this one. They will find a job or another way to earn money rather quick compared to the average worker. Besides, being worth 84 milion dollars, who needs work afterwards anyway? I would be able to live my entire life with a much smaller portion than that.

That is exactly my point...they would probably need to/have to retire.
 
That's fine. It wasn't like I wasn't going to learn anything from your ramblings.
let me ask you, are you rich? wait, you didn't claim that...

ramblings? your definition is odd.

No, my definition is spot on. You're the one spewing stuff about rich people without understanding how people get rich.

You can't explain it rationally because the entire position is irrational. Nobody faults you for not attempting the impossible.



Barring winning the lottery or having an oil deposit fortuitously appear on your property, becoming wealthy or "rich" requires hard work. Nobody here has suggested working hard, in and of itself, translates to high income.

You, on the other hand, have supported the demonstrably false position that high income is purely the result of luck.

I did not claim this. quote me if you have to. Let me help you. "HARD WORK does NOT MAKE YOU RICH"

Funny how you just agreed with me and still somehow arguing about it? lol

That's exactly what you are claiming:

no one has gotten rich on hard work. Its based on luck. Right place, right time, right product/service. And wealth of 84 million is sick no matter how you rationalize it.

You are placing a heavier emphasis on LUCK than someone's own efforts.
 
I have a proposition for you: Name me one rich lazy person.
The thing about getting rich is you no longer have to work as hard, therefor I will present the argument that there is no rich people that are not lazy. No one wants to bust their balls all day long unless they have to. The fact that you said that puts me thinking you don't work hard either.

One simple rule. A rich man would rather pay someone to do hard labor for them. Having money allows the luxury of working smarter not harder.
 
When you consider the vast fortunes of Bil Gates and Steve Ballmer, two things immediately spring to mind:

1. M$ has always been a top heavy predatory business.

2. At a mere $84,000,000. a year, Natella is "the minority hire" of the bunch. (Both figuratively and literally).

The shocking thing here is, he has put thousands of M$ employees out of work. Perhaps a big chunk of that 84 million came out of their pockets.

Perhaps the next step will be moving windows coding "off shore". That no doubt, would earn him more money, and more shares of the company.
 
No, my definition is spot on. You're the one spewing stuff about rich people without understanding how people get rich.



That's exactly what you are claiming:



You are placing a heavier emphasis on LUCK than someone's own efforts.
Do you work hard?
 
The thing about getting rich is you no longer have to work as hard, therefor I will present the argument that there is no rich people that are not lazy. No one wants to bust their balls all day long unless they have to. The fact that you said that puts me thinking you don't work hard either.

One simple rule. A rich man would rather pay someone to do hard labor for them. Having money allows the luxury of working smarter not harder.

You can simply say that you don't have an answer to the question. That would make you look less foolish.

At this moment, I'm not working too hard, which is why I can write this stuff, but for the most part I work my butt off and constantly keep abreast of information in my industry.

Your "rule" is simply describing our modern economy. Does it make sense for a businessman to be his own secretary, lawyer, accountant, engineer, janitor, chef, printer, IT manager, etc., etc., etc.? The smart rich person recognizes he can't do everything and hires people to do those core competencies that they, oh I don't know, are competent at.
 
No, but I also stated that hard work is necessary but insufficient in becoming rich. You really need a lesson in logical thinking.
So.... wait... you said the same thing I said and you are arguing about it?????

"Hard work DOES NOT make you rich"..... either you agree or you don't agree.
 
The thing about getting rich is you no longer have to work as hard, therefor I will present the argument that there is no rich people that are not lazy. No one wants to bust their balls all day long unless they have to. The fact that you said that puts me thinking you don't work hard either.

You don't actually know any "rich" people, do you? I happen to know quite a few. In fact, I was taught how to trade by a few very wealthy individuals (annual income above $1 million). Ubiquitously, when asked why they deal with the hassles of teaching 8-10hrs a day when they've got so much cash, the answer is "I enjoy working. The money from trading is nice, but I'd go insane just sitting around all day." The same is true of a few business owners/executives I know.

I suspect this sloth narrative that people spin is little more than the projection of their personal fantasies.
 
Back