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

D

davislane1

Do you realize if someone gets poorer every time someone gets richer, then it would be fundamentally impossible to get rid of poverty.
Can you clarify that statement, please? I've read over it a few times and I'm not quite sure if you typed what you meant.
 
D

davislane1

Some people just don't get it. Enjoy your night and your little wealth where everyone suffers at someone else expense.
So, I end the exchange with "I can respect your charity" and you wrap it up with "f*** you, pal."

Such....maturity.

You obviously don't care how badly one person tramples another. You keep arguing merits of the more fortunate(I chose not to use greedy here), while I know they have no merits. That tells me only one thing, you sympathies with them and are likely greedy yourself. But there is also another very clear notion here. I don't know you and can't make that claim. I can only speculate as to why you seem sympathetic. You are only strengthening the concept that this unbalanced world will never change and people like Satya Nadella, will continue to trample on those below his pedestal. I can understand why someone on a pedestal as well will uphold this concept. If you are truly not standing on a pedestal of your own, I don't understand your position. And no matter how you try to explain the merits of greed (I think I will go ahead and use the word, can't get it off my tounge), I doubt I will ever understand so I think I'm done here.
Since you're done here, I won't bother with the longer version:

Our difference of opinion and inability to find any common ground results from a fundamental difference in worldview. You're an ideals person, I'm not. You see things in terms of a binary system of right and wrong, where the absolute value of an event is determined by what you feel, based on speculation. I see things in terms of a ternary system of right, wrong, and neutral, where the absolute value of an event is determined by its state, as demonstrated by data or logic. These views are fundamentally incompatible with one another. Therefore, you will never appreciate my position, as you have rightly concluded.
 

andrewyoung

TS Enthusiast
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?
I didn't claim that hard work makes you rich. I claimed that there are rich people because of hard work. Hard work is necessary but insufficient in determining whether someone gets rich. So your dozens of mothers and entire countries of kids can work their butts off without ever becoming rich. That's life and your caterwauling about it ain't going to change that.

I have a proposition for you: Name me one rich lazy person.

By the way, while I would like more money, my life isn't driven by what others have or for the incessant want of money. You're the one that said $84 million is sick. I asked you how much money should that person make in order to not be considered sick in your view.
paris hilton.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
I see things in terms of a ternary system of right, wrong, and neutral, where the absolute value of an event is determined by its state, as demonstrated by data or logic.
That is funny seeing as (throughout this entire thread) you have been trying (let me put it in your words, working hard) to put the "wrong" on neutral ground. If you had any sense of right and wrong, you would understand the world as a digital playground, because there is no neutral ground. You must be trying to place a ratio between someones right and wrong features, painting everyone neutral. How do we prosecute anyone if a distinct line can not be drawn between the two? Your neutral ground is the foundation behind our differences in opinion.
 
D

davislane1

That is funny seeing as (throughout this entire thread) you have been trying (let me put it in your words, working hard) to put the "wrong" on neutral ground. If you had any sense of right and wrong, you would understand the world as a digital playground, because there is no neutral ground. You must be trying to place a ratio between someones right and wrong features, painting everyone neutral. How do we prosecute anyone if a distinct line can not be drawn between the two? Your neutral ground is the foundation behind our differences in opinion.
No neutral ground... So, you mean to suggest, that if I choose to butter my toast in two strokes rather than three, that event has a non-neutral moral repercussion? GTFO.

What I said: Our difference of opinion and inability to find any common ground results from a fundamental difference in worldview.
What you just said: Your neutral ground is the foundation behind our differences in opinion.

Frankly, I am astonished, utterly astonished, that you would be so unthinking in your response as to attempt to seriously refute my argument [on the basis of it being true]. The only thing I can think of that comes even remotely close to that level of unmitigated cognitive witchcraft, is legitimately attempting to carjack yourself in front of a cop, on camera, in the police parking lot!

Somebody lock the thread. This can't be topped.

Note: edited for clarity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

davislane1

That is not what I did, and you know it.
That's exactly what you did. And I guarantee most of the people who analyze that paragraph you wrote will reach the same conclusion.

If you somehow intended to convey your concurrence with my post, I strongly suggest a revision, because what you have there is egregious.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
If you somehow intended to convey your concurrence with my post, I strongly suggest a revision, because what you have there is egregious.
Fine, I'll clarify!
Your neutral ground
Your head, not mine. I never once stated my opinion was of the same nature as yours. I never once based your opinion as fact. In fact I made it quite clear, I thought you didn't have any sense of right and wrong, if you allow for shades of gray. As if beating someone is perfectly OK, as long as you don't kill them. But this is all besides the point. The topic is about Satya Nadella. And my opinion will never change about Millionaires (Billionaires are even worse) hording money as being outright unethical for the greater good of all.

Now before Mailpup steps in with dunce hats for all, I think I will exit stage.
 

Forg0t2

TS Booster
That is exactly my point...they would probably need to/have to retire.
You're not getting me because I would love to retire afterwards. Maybe find me a crazy hobby or something to invest in. at least with around 85 milion dollars I do not have to worry about money anyway.
 

Rippleman

TS Evangelist
So, I end the exchange with "I can respect your charity" and you wrap it up with "f*** you, pal."
while it may have sounded bad, I did not intend it to sound like that. I always wish to expand my opinion base. I honestly believe you could be correct and I could be wrong. I don't feel that way at the moment, but I am always possibly wrong and know it. I have changed my opinion about many things by talking and discussing on web forums. Seeing things from a different angle is very important to me since human fallibility is something we all have. Do I agree with you? No. Could you be right? Absolutely? But with the evidence I have right now I disagree with you, please know I would never say "f** you" on a web forum and hope I never will.
 
D

davislane1

while it may have sounded bad, I did not intend it to sound like that. I always wish to expand my opinion base. I honestly believe you could be correct and I could be wrong. I don't feel that way at the moment, but I am always possibly wrong and know it. I have changed my opinion about many things by talking and discussing on web forums. Seeing things from a different angle is very important to me since human fallibility is something we all have. Do I agree with you? No. Could you be right? Absolutely? But with the evidence I have right now I disagree with you, please know I would never say "f** you" on a web forum and hope I never will.
Fair enough. My apologies for the misunderstanding.
 
D

davislane1

Paris Hilton isn't lazy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton

I can't believe I'm defending her, but Paris Hilton also works her butt off.
You're just white knighting in the hope that she'll notice you. You sly dog.

Staying rich requires as much work, if not more, as working to become rich.
Paris Hilton shouldn't even be part of the discussion. Being born into wealth is fundamentally different from becoming wealthy. It's the difference between being genetically gifted (possessing an inherent advantage), and diligent self-improvement (acquiring an advantage). Though, I'm curious how you understand wealth retention to possibly require more work than wealth acquisition. At face value, it seems to me that the former is necessarily easier than the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmbjive
G

Guest

Techspot really needs to turn comments off, at least then we don't to suffer through the endless legions of people without even the slightest hint of reading comprehension.
 

MilwaukeeMike

TS Evangelist
Do you realize if someone gets poorer every time someone gets richer, then it would be fundamentally impossible to get rid of poverty.

Can you clarify that statement, please? I've read over it a few times and I'm not quite sure if you typed what you meant.
Rippleman believes wealth is zero-sum. If it is, then when someone gets richer, someone else must be getting poorer. And when someone gets poorer, it means that someone must have gotten richer. Think, Law of Conservation of Energy (or matter) but for money.
The only way around this would be for rich people to give away all their money to 'spread the wealth' or for a government to try to redistribute the wealth like they do in communist countries. (this might explain why people in communist countries starve)

However, if wealth is zero-sum, then that means it can't be created out of nothing; it can only change hands. If that's true, the change in GDP of every country in the world would be 0 every year. All we would be able to do to improve poverty is to take money from rich people and give it to poor people. (And we have an entire political party bent on doing just that). But if that were the ONLY way to acquire wealth, then inflation wouldn't exist. The fed would only print money to replace worn out bills, and the relative money supply would never change. The fed would tie the money supply to the population (to prevent deflation) and nothing would ever change price. But now we're really talking crazy...

To deny that a) change in GDP is ever positive and that b) inflation isn't real is as fundamentally wrong as saying the sun revolves around the earth. Which I think is how I described it back on page 1.
 
D

davislane1

Do you realize if someone gets poorer every time someone gets richer, then it would be fundamentally impossible to get rid of poverty.


Rippleman believes wealth is zero-sum. If it is, then when someone gets richer, someone else must be getting poorer. And when someone gets poorer, it means that someone must have gotten richer. Think, Law of Conservation of Energy (or matter) but for money.
The only way around this would be for rich people to give away all their money to 'spread the wealth' or for a government to try to redistribute the wealth like they do in communist countries. (this might explain why people in communist countries starve)

However, if wealth is zero-sum, then that means it can't be created out of nothing; it can only change hands. If that's true, the change in GDP of every country in the world would be 0 every year. All we would be able to do to improve poverty is to take money from rich people and give it to poor people. (And we have an entire political party bent on doing just that). But if that were the ONLY way to acquire wealth, then inflation wouldn't exist. The fed would only print money to replace worn out bills, and the relative money supply would never change. The fed would tie the money supply to the population (to prevent deflation) and nothing would ever change price. But now we're really talking crazy...

To deny that a) change in GDP is ever positive and that b) inflation isn't real is as fundamentally wrong as saying the sun revolves around the earth. Which I think is how I described it back on page 1.
Thanks; I understand your position now. I think what tripped me up was the statement about poverty. I hold that poverty, under any system, is fundamentally impossible to get rid of (it can only be managed), thus: "poverty can't be eliminated" is always true. It seemed rather obvious to point out, so I wondered if you meant what you've just spelled out above.
 

cmbjive

TS Booster
You're just white knighting in the hope that she'll notice you. You sly dog.



Paris Hilton shouldn't even be part of the discussion. Being born into wealth is fundamentally different from becoming wealthy. It's the difference between being genetically gifted (possessing an inherent advantage), and diligent self-improvement (acquiring an advantage). Though, I'm curious how you understand wealth retention to possibly require more work than wealth acquisition. At face value, it seems to me that the former is necessarily easier than the latter.
I only wish she would look my way (though my wife would probably have a problem).

When I talk about wealth retention being harder than wealth acquisition, I can only give an example. Bill Gates acquired most of his wealth by getting his project, Windows, to mass market appeal and founding Microsoft. However, now that he is retired from the company, he is no longer creating anything of value and is living off the fruits of his labor. However, that fruit still needs to be cultivated and grown. He still needs to invest that money properly and protect it from pests (IRS and a variety of tax authorities). He probably has an entire team of people who are dedicated just to growing his wealth. It is entirely possible that he could just stuff it in a bank somewhere, but interest rates would nowhere near grow his wealth to where it is today and his still has to monitor market performance to ensure that his wealth continues to grow and not wither.

That example demonstrates to me that putting in the work to create something is tenuous, but keeping the wealth after creating has stopped requires twice as much effort acquiring it in the first place.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
Fine, I'll clarify!
Your head, not mine. I never once stated my opinion was of the same nature as yours. I never once based your opinion as fact. In fact I made it quite clear, I thought you didn't have any sense of right and wrong, if you allow for shades of gray. As if beating someone is perfectly OK, as long as you don't kill them. But this is all besides the point. The topic is about Satya Nadella. And my opinion will never change about Millionaires (Billionaires are even worse) hording money as being outright unethical for the greater good of all.....[ ]....
Once upon time, "eminent domain" was the law on the land. A person or family couldn't bequeath real estate property to the heirs or assigns. Property ownership reverted back to the king, With the signature of King John of England on the Magna Carta, all of that changed. Now, we have ruling class people, (what would have formerly been nobles, getting filthy rich off our largest corporations). The only thing that has changed, is now a person may rise to the level of a king, with nary a drop of blood shed.

Nonetheless, these are bloodless battles, that precious few are equipped to fight. Perhaps a lack of avarice or ambition deny upward mobility. In some, a lack of intellect or creative, relevant, thought, impede their progress.

One thing that remains constant is this jealousy and bitterness of those left behind. The question continually oscillating back and forth between, "why him", to, "why not me".

Then there is the hypocrisy of man's institutions, the Roman Catholic Church being the most manifold and manifest offender. The Catholic chirch possesses enormous wealth and lands. But those who serve it, must take vows of poverty and chastity.
...[ ].... And my opinion will never change about Millionaires (Billionaires are even worse) hording money as being outright unethical for the greater good of all...[ ]...
You understand these are the basic tenets of Communism, don't you? Decades ago when "freedom of speech" was a cruel joke, Sen. McCarthy would have you brought before him to, confess to your "crime think".

That said, Communism isn't that bad of an idea. I mean, stripping us of our vanities, distributing wealth equally, and having the entire world run on a, "all for one, one for all", legally dictated mandate.

The trouble with that is, true Communism has never been implemented. The "closest thing to Communisism", existed as the USSR, or so their people were deluded / brainwashed into believing. In the end, that was a military dictatorship, with only members of the "ruling class", sharing the wealth and determining the direction of the "people".

Mankind exists as a cruel, ironic, dichotomy! Simultaneously as a herd animal, and as the most avaricious, most feared, keystone predator, to ever bear witness to planet earth..

Capitalism exists as an ideal, where anyone may benefit from self deterministic endeavor.. Good luck with that. 99% of the population has neither the skills, talent, imagination, birthright, or the charisma, to make capitalism fully work on their behalf. And that self same 99% are, "content", to sit around and envy the rich while cursing their own fate. After all, isn't that why we had to invent, "heaven"? Making sure the transition to dust would fulfill our lofty goals, and the need for peace and well being. We'll all be rich in heaven boys and girls, count on it.

In the meantime, "don't worry, be happy".
 
Last edited:
D

davislane1

Do you realize if someone gets poorer every time someone gets richer, then it would be fundamentally impossible to get rid of poverty.


Rippleman believes wealth is zero-sum.
No, this is not my position. My position is extremes hurt society.
Define extreme. For instance, using Cliff's number for convenience, let us assume that $1,000,000.00 constitutes the baseline for "extreme". What makes $1,000,000.00 extreme but not $999,999.99?
 

Rippleman

TS Evangelist
Define extreme. For instance, using Cliff's number for convenience, let us assume that $1,000,000.00 constitutes the baseline for "extreme". What makes $1,000,000.00 extreme but not $999,999.99?
Instead of using base numbers to define limits, I would propose using percentages. How much more should the most richest person have vs the poorest person? While there would be no "right" number, there would be an optimal range of numbers depending on what kind of society a country wishes to be. Do you want to live in a country with kings, queens, lords and peasants/servants? The kings and queens political system is exactly what we are heading back to if you consider corporations/billionaires/lobbyists etc as the new kings and queens. I prefer to live in a country where everyone is a EQUAL valued member of society, with similar but different roles. I am no more of a man then anyone here. I also am no less. I may have greater abilities then some here, and I may also have far lesser abilities. But in no way, should I be paid 1000X more then anyone here. Same applies to you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cliffordcooley
D

davislane1

Instead of using base numbers to define limits, I would propose using percentages. How much more should the most richest person have vs the poorest person? While there would be no "right" number, there would be an optimal range of numbers depending on what kind of society a country wishes to be. Do you want to live in a country with kinds, queens, lords and peasants/servants? The kings and queens political system is exactly what we are heading back to if you consider corporations/billionaires/lobbyists etc as the new kings and queens. I prefer to live in a country where everyone is a EQUAL valued member of society, with similar but different roles. I am no more of a man then anyone here. I also am no less. I may have greater abilities then some here, and I may also have far lesser abilities. But in no way, should I be paid 1000X more then anyone here. Same applies to you.
If there is no "right" number, how is is possible to establish a coherent system of justice? In the absence of a defined point that delineates between the right number or the wrong number, or the optimal number and the suboptimal number, the entire system devolves into relativism. (For the record, I am a moral objectivist.)

When explained in the manner you have above, this sounds like your position has been pulled straight from the pages of Marx. While the idea of everyone being of equal value to society is nice on paper, how does this ever evolve beyond a mass game of pretend in the real world? Not a single species on this planet is composed of equally valuable members. This is not to suggest that they aren't any less human, or lion, or zebra, or buffalo. But the idea that any organism is intrinsically equal to another in the physical universe is demonstrably false. For instance, if Jack saves a million people by curing cancer and Jill runs a car wash, how are their contributions to society equal? How is cleaning a car the equivalent of saving a life?

Being subject to kings and queens and other elites falls to the same sword. In your proposed model, the people are simply subjected to a more exclusive and vastly more powerful rulership: the individuals charged with determining the "optimal" range of difference among the people. Instead of being held back by the presence of competition (as is the case in our crony capitalist system), the potential of everyone is held back by an arbitrary barrier. A quote from Animal Farm comes immediately to mind...
 

MilwaukeeMike

TS Evangelist
Do you want to live in a country with kings, queens, lords and peasants/servants? The kings and queens political system is exactly what we are heading back to if you consider corporations/billionaires/lobbyists etc as the new kings and queens. I prefer to live in a country where everyone is a EQUAL valued member of society, with similar but different roles. I am no more of a man then anyone here. I also am no less. I may have greater abilities then some here, and I may also have far lesser abilities. But in no way, should I be paid 1000X more then anyone here. Same applies to you.
Corporations are not the new kings. There is only one king,but there are many corporations. If you don't like walmart, shop at Target, if you don't like Apple, buy an Android. With corporations you always have choice. The Govt is the new king. With the govt, there is no choice. Where do you go if you don't like the DMV? With the govt, you have no choice. You're just stuck with whatever they give you. And because they know this, what they give you usually sucks. Look at the VA scandal for what happens when the govt runs healthcare.

The govt is behind in just about everything. They have no incentive not to be. if the govt wastes money they just borrow more or raise taxes. if a corp loses money, someone gets fired, shareholders get mad, stock goes down and everyone loses money.
Even in things you'd think the govt would be ahead of, they're not. Look at the issue of same-sex couples. Corps and private insurance companies are WAY ahead of the govt in benefits and rights. They want all the customers they can get, so of course they're going to cater to every part of the population.

The closest thing to a king in our country is the president. The CEO of a company only has money and power because we buy his/her stuff. We don't have to, it's OUR choice. Your only choice to not use govt services or pay your taxes is to leave, and that's not really a choice.
 

Rippleman

TS Evangelist
If there is no "right" number, how is is possible to establish a coherent system of justice?
The number would be a sliding value based on what society has to offer. Your example of the scientist vs the car wash is a great example of what I was also meaning. There must be a reward system based on accomplishment, "NOT because I can". I know many people who make $500+ a day and "work" not nearly as hard as other people I know who "work" harder. Does a security guard who sits at a desk reading a newspaper deserve 4X money then the janitor cleaning around the guard? What about reversed? Since I am a redneck nobody, can you explain why you feel you only deserve what you get paid versus example: Tim Cook? Does he work X many times harder then you?