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

Rippleman

TS Evangelist
Corporations are not the new kings. There is only one king,but there are many corporations.
This is where we may have different outlooks. I view the government as a referee. Corporations can change the government policies through influence. People can change the government policies though influence. Billionaires can change policies through influence. A king doesn't change and can only be overthrown.
 
D

davislane1

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?
Of course the security guard deserves 4x the money as the janitor. First of all, the security guard is required to put himself in harm's way. By contrast, dust bunnies have never attacked a janitor. Secondly, more people can sweep floors effectively than can perform effective security. Consequently, when thousands of people apply for jobs, the price is bid down until the other job seekers won't go any lower. For instance: Applicant A demands $10.00/hr to sweep floors. I then show up and agree to do it for $9.00, knowing this is a better proposition for the employer. So on and so forth until the other applicant backs out. The competition is not as fierce for security guards. Consequently, prices aren't bid as low.

I only deserve what I get paid because I make good or poor decisions, as determined by the market. I profit off of the fluctuation in asset prices, or volatility. The net profit at the end of any trading period is directly reflective of how accurate my market analysis was during that period. In short, I get paid on the impact of my decisions for the account. Tim Cook makes vastly more than I do because his decisions are vastly more important. My order flow in the futures markets is 1-5 contracts in markets that trade several million contracts per day. Where or why I do my buying and selling matters to no one. Tim Cook, by contrast, runs a multi-billion dollar global corporation. Where and why he does his buying and selling has consequences for thousands of employees, millions of customers, the millions of workers inside Apple's supply chain, and local governments (taxes, regulatory fees, etc.) to the tune of billions of dollars. I cannot effectively perform Cook's job, as I lack both the experience and expertise. Cook can. Simply put, Tim Cook is far more valuable to the economy than I am. Therefore, he gets paid a whole lot more than I do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippleman

TS Evangelist
Tim Cook is far more valuable to the economy than I am. .
I disagree that he is 84 million X more. More people should start disagreeing too. Maybe some great things would start to happen. This current game of "monopoly" is just that. A pyramid that will eventually peak to 1 entity and 1 guy will have all the money.
 
D

davislane1

I disagree. More people should start disagreeing too. Maybe some great things would start to happen. This current game of "monopoly" is just that. A pyramid that will eventually peak to 1 entity and 1 guy will have all the money.
On what grounds? Demonstrate how Cook and I are of equal value to the economy.
 
D

davislane1

Apple generated over $170 billion in revenue last year with Cook at the helm. Out of that, Cook banked $74 million, or 0.04% of the total revenue his decisions brought in for the company. My decisions, assuming current position sizing and perfect trading (see: the impossible), could bring in around $250,000-$280,000. Both of us would lose about half of that to taxes, all else equal. That brings us down to $37 million and $125,000-140,000, respectively.

Thus: Cook generated approx. $170 billion for Apple and approx. $37 million in personal income taxes. Meanwhile, I would stand to generate approx. $125,000-$140,000 for the account and the government.

Seeing that Cook's decisions are responsible for 680,000x more money coming into Apple than my trading, how is it he doesn't deserve disproportionately large compensation? Especially after you said the following:

There must be a reward system based on accomplishment
 
D

davislane1

Lets swap roles, if you and Tim Cook were swapped out, and under your direction, would Apple be doing worse? better? same?
Worse. With me at the helm, the company would probably implode. I know economics, business theory, finance and trading, not how to properly manage the affairs and relationships of a corporation the size of Apple.

Here, what if Apple offered you Tim Cooks job for a flat rate of 1 million a year.... would you take it?
No, because I can't effectively perform the job.
 

Rippleman

TS Evangelist
Worse. With me at the helm, the company would probably implode. I know economics, business theory, finance and trading, not how to properly manage the affairs and relationships of a corporation the size of Apple.



No, because I can't effectively perform the job.
in 1992 he felt the same way, but in the end, I 100% guarentee you would NOT do 84,000,000 times worse.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
In the absence of a defined point that delineates between the right number or the wrong number
There lies the problem. Those with power will never regulate, as it would regulate themselves. Which forms the baseline to greed that has never been challenged. But yet cranky suggest it is Communism. No that would be a government that actually governs (including themselves).
 

LNCPapa

TS Special Forces
Socialism is different then communism.
True - but most people here are complaining that he is not doing X times the amount or quality of work and should be brought closer in line to what the average person makes... this is closer to communism than socialism. People here are arguing that NEED is more important than DEEDs. People in the US and most other places in the world just don't work that way. It's naive to think people will be willing to give up their life's advantages completely... for the sake of getting everyone else to their state. There's just not enough resources for that.
 

cliffordcooley

TS Redneck
There's just not enough resources for that.
You have a point and that point stems from the idea we do not as a society live within our needs. And if anyone is allowed to burn up massive amounts of resources, we should all be allowed the same luxury. No I do not agree with your assessment, and will argue if that is the case, we need this regulation more than ever. Because the one with money is the one burning up our resources.
 
G

Guest

Greed.

Greed is the driving fire behind the economy. It is a powerful fire it has to be. If left unchecked, it becomes destructive. Too much of anything can disrupt your bodily systems. Too much of anything can disrupt an economic system. On the other hand, it can't be so regulated and contained that it gives up and fizzles out. This is the game we've played with our needs and wants amongst each other since our species started. Throughout history we have come up with better and better economic systems that cater to more and more of us. None are perfect. None work all the time every time. That is simply the consequence of playing with fire. So what do we do? We fuel the flame when it gets low and contain it when it gets too hot. For nearly two decades that fire has started to get too hot again. We are seeing some of the biggest income gaps EVER. The middle class, the BACKBONE of the economy has drastically been reduced. High-end earners hording more cash then they'll ever spend. Big banks.This money doesn't just magically get replaced right when it's needed. When enough people's needs are lost over a few's wants, enough people would naturally oppose this. When the world's richest 1% own 40% of ALL WEALTH there isn't just 1 problem. There's 800 million of them.
 

captaincranky

TechSpot Addict
There lies the problem. Those with power will never regulate, as it would regulate themselves. Which forms the baseline to greed that has never been challenged. But yet cranky suggest it is Communism. No that would be a government that actually governs (including themselves).
You guys do realize most of you are whining for communism, don't you?
No @LNCPapa, Clifford doesn't really understand government or economics. He's just cursing the harsh reality of fate, and how it attaches to his circumstance.

I could have told you all pages ago how sh!t works. The way it was told to me decades ago was, "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer". I haven't really been able to find fault with that logic .

One point I'd like to illuminate, is how the Magna Carta's gains in the rights of inheritance are being negated by the banking class, via reverse mortgages.

There lies the problem. Those with power will never regulate, as it would regulate themselves. Which forms the baseline to greed that has never been challenged. But yet cranky suggest it is Communism. No that would be a government that actually governs (including themselves).
Yeah well, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Deal with it.

Or, any government implemented by man is doomed to failure, since it is man's basic nature to subjugate other men, by whatever means available.
 
Last edited: