Originally posted by Mister.K.
my_view, how have you been?
I am doing ok Mr K. If I didn't have to work I would be doing better.! How have you been?
Originally posted by Mister.K.
You implied that reaching a wider audience is key. My software touches the lives of billions but I am still not super rich.
Yeah but no disrespect to you sir or your work but as one of many employees who can do the same job, you are dispensable. Its not only about reaching the wider audience, its about connecting with them directly one on one through your work.
Originally posted by Mister.K.
You could say that it's not my software alone but there's a company standing behind that. I would say that it's the same case with the current super rich too. A Narayana Murthy or a Bill Gates or a Ambani didn't do it all by themselves.
There's a team behind them. Every single person starting with the security guard to the person who replenishes the stock room to the receptionist to the HR person to the accountant to the programmer to the project manager had a hand in their success. Everybody played a role.
And most employees who worked for startups did become millionaires overnight with stock options.
Originally posted by Mister.K.
The rich get to be super rich by keeping the majority of the company's assets to themselves.
I disagree .. They are rich because of highly valued stock options they own since the start of business venture and not because of their salary. Besides one can't compare a day (and worrisome night) in life of a highly ranked executive to that of stock room clerk.
Originally posted by Mister.K.
They throw crumbs down the hierarchy which the eager beavers lap up. Fine, it could be their inception, it could be their baby, the big idea could be theirs but that's about it. After that point, how do you quantify the contributions of every individual is what is in discussion here. I am saying that the prevalent compensatory practices are unreservedly unfair.
You are talking about capping salaries of CEOs which is another debate onto itself.
Ben Jerry upon starting their ice-cream company mandated that their CEO could not earn more than seven times the lowest paid employee but had to abandon the policy as company's bottom line started to suffer.
As for unfair compensatory practices, once the company is well settled in the market most of the staff work on maintaining operations and hardly ever make any creative contribution or generate more income. Which is why sales people make more than the administrative personnel.
Originally posted by Mister.K.
Like I said in one of my previous posts on this thread, most of us understand the economics behind the disparity but the point is, if 1% of the world's richest own 40% of the global assets and if 10% of the world's richest account for 85% of the global assets then there is something gravely wrong with the picture.
The rich do their part - Top 10% of highest earners pay 80% of all income taxes collected.
Originally posted by Mister.K.
If we pause for a minute and let the above numbers sink in, we would understand the grim nature of the problem. The rich, even though they are small in numbers own more than 80% of the world's wealth.
I have no problem with that - philosophically speaking there is inequality in nature. we do not have any choice in the way we are born or the society we are born into. If someone is born blind we are not going to ask people to start donating their eye.
But I do agree with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet with their campaign asking billionaires to donate half of their wealth to charity. I think I read somewhere that Buffet has pledged to give 99% of his fortune to charity.
_Angie_
bet he will not cry like this...as ahem boys don't cry 
my_view
