I don’t think it’s pointless. I think it’s good for people to know how big companies, which are so important in our economy, function.
Voltaire said it first: With great power comes great responsibility. Others prefer a more-recent attribution, citing Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben in Spiderman. Winston Churchill said: The price of greatness is responsibility.
So far, there is no law mandating any sort of social responsibility for the rich and powerful in the US. We are trusting of the invisible hand to keep things fair. The problem with this system is the people who are chaff in the winnowing. How many peons need to lose so that a few CEOs can win?
skip the pointless comparison and look at the numbers for Bezos, his salary is 81K, the company paid 1.7M for security but all his great wealth is the 16% of the company stock, you know, of the company he founded.
I’m not getting your point? He’s sold stock in the past…
And you will never get the point, because you don’t want to.
What was your point in presenting that article? So “on paper” Bezos’ salary was 81k. Who cares? He’s sold stock in the past and he can sell stock in the future. He’s not living on 81k / year, that’s for sure.
As for me not wanting to get the point, that’s not true. I’ve asked you repeatedly to explain your perspective and you dodge the hard questions. Let’s try again:
Are you happy that some of your tax dollars go to pay for food for Amazon employees?
Do you believe that it makes long term economic sense to let the .01% wealthiest people destroy the middle class in pursuit of greater wealth?
The rich should be taxed more. No need to limit their income - just tax it more. Were they not in America, they would not be that rich. They owe more to the country. Buffett agrees.
The epitome of the laissez faire attitude is Trump. Get rich without concern about whom you trample on your way up. The alarming thing is that he has achieved the highest office in the land (maybe the world), and his supporters give him a pass for every unscrupulous thing he’s done. That’s gotta be some sort of weird psychological syndrome. We have “sadism” named after Marquis de Sade. And Oedipus complex named after the Greek character. What will Trump disorder be?
Maybe to describe Trump, or people who vote for him despite the faults which would disqualify any other candidate—or maybe because of them—we need one of those poly-compound terms like they have in German. Like schadenfreude (taking joy in others’ pain). Maybe that might be close?
There was a time, in some states, where Walmart employees were expected to spend a certain amount of their own paycheck in walmart stores.
I get that supporting your employer is a good idea, but quotas seems like over-reach to me.