|
 Originally Posted by Renton
Why should you distribute company profits to people who aren't assuming any risk?
It seems elitist and naive to assume that anyone isn't assuming any risk.
I've heard an argument that the risks faced by the working class are, in fact, much greater than the "wealthy" business owner. In the event of a failed company, who's more likely to go hungry? Who's more likely to have a difficult time picking up their lives and providing for their families? Who's more likely to face long-term upset to their livelihood?
The dollar amount risked by the business owner may be greater, but the actual physical risk to the health and livelihood of themselves and their families doesn't compare with the risk the working class bears. It's not easily quantified in a dollar amount.
Bah... I don't like these arguments, but still... the notion that the working class assumes no risk seems heartless and short-sighted.
 Originally Posted by Renton
Why should you give a bonus that's any more than the bare minimum to achieve an optimal boost in morale and productivity?
If your argument is that you're entitled to the money because it represents the value you've created in the world, then you are a hypocrite if you do not reward someone who provides you value - by paying them money according to their value.
 Originally Posted by OngBonga
even when they fail so hard that the taxpayer has to pay to bail the banks out of a crisis.
Yeah, taxpayers bailed them out. Then they repaid the loan on time, with interest. At least get that part of the story, too.
|