Debate Mansion

   

Most overpaid/underpaid profession? (Page 8)

Post Reply New Post

Page 8 of 37

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 7:10am | IP Logged
Originally posted by _DrEaM_

Originally posted by Believe

Check this...how  kids ask for increment!!
 


now think what he will grow up to be LOL bet he will not cry like this...as ahem boys don't cry Wink
... they whine ! LOL

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Most overpaid/underpaid profession? (Page 8)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 8:49am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Beyond_the_Veil

my_view

Goldie

my_view

Joined: 18 December 2008

Posts: 1117

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 11:45am | IP Logged
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.


The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Beyond_the_Veil

Mister.K.

IF-Dazzler

Joined: 28 February 2009

Posts: 2950

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 12:21pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

P1nk

IF-Dazzler

P1nk

Joined: 22 May 2009

Posts: 3262

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 1:13pm | IP Logged
Footballers are overpaid.

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13889

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 1:25pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Mister.K.

OK, this goes for Gauri, Souro and to a certain extent my_view:

Please allow me to go off topic for a second - I don't get the style of answering back at each sentence. I know that probably each and every sentence that's posted on these forums is debatable but IMO people are not supposed to look at a word or a sentence and start replying back right away. Please consider the overall essence of the post and then respond back with what you got. Keeping up with that style of replying to sentences which are nothing but fragments of ideas would take anyone oodles of time when all one should be doing is understand what the other person is trying to convey and express agreement or disagreement accordingly.

There are a gazillion sentences floating around right now on this thread which are completely debatable and yet arguing about them would deviate from the central theme of the debate. To recap what that is, a couple of questions were posed in the very first post and they were "Who do you think is getting money which obviously they don't deserve? And who's not getting paid enough? Where is the justice in that?"

Any sensible person understands supply and demand, the advantages of reaching a wider audience, the craze for celebrities (even if it's for a short window of time) and the need for the entities behind them to cash it in while it lasts. I am going at this as "what is wrong with this picture". You guys seem more interested in "explaining the picture for what it stands". if that is the case, let me tell you that I too "understand the picture".

Mister.K. - I reply in whatever manner I deem convenient at a given point of time. If the whole post conveys one idea then I try to reply in one single body, whereas breaking up the reply becomes necessary if the post I'm quoting has several different elements. You have your own way, let me have my own. If you feel you don't like my way, you're always welcome to ignore it.

I said that supply and demand decides who earns more. You said that I've put it too simply, there are more correlations involved.
Then you actually wrote a few paras on supply and demand asking me to leave aside even handedness and concentrate on pure demand and supply.
And now you are saying that instead of concentrating on supply and demand, which explains the picture, I should concentrate on finding out what is wrong with the picture. Why didn't you say so earlier?

my_view

Goldie

my_view

Joined: 18 December 2008

Posts: 1117

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 1:49pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Mister.K.

OK, this goes for Gauri, Souro and to a certain extent my_view:

Please allow me to go off topic for a second - I don't get the style of answering back at each sentence. I know that probably each and every sentence that's posted on these forums is debatable but IMO people are not supposed to look at a word or a sentence and start replying back right away. Please consider the overall essence of the post and then respond back with what you got. Keeping up with that style of replying to sentences which are nothing but fragments of ideas would take anyone oodles of time when all one should be doing is understand what the other person is trying to convey and express agreement or disagreement accordingly.

There are a gazillion sentences floating around right now on this thread which are completely debatable and yet arguing about them would deviate from the central theme of the debate. To recap what that is, a couple of questions were posed in the very first post and they were "Who do you think is getting money which obviously they don't deserve? And who's not getting paid enough? Where is the justice in that?"

Any sensible person understands supply and demand, the advantages of reaching a wider audience, the craze for celebrities (even if it's for a short window of time) and the need for the entities behind them to cash it in while it lasts. I am going at this as "what is wrong with this picture". You guys seem more interested in "explaining the picture for what it stands". if that is the case, let me tell you that I too "understand the picture".






Let me just say this Mr. K. Not everything is wrong with the picture.
You seem to be pointing out the negatives leaving the positives out and I was just rebutting to your negatives.
Having said that I wouldn't ever think that what I am saying is new to you or something you have never heard before but it is DM and we have an audience here and arguments from both sides should be presented in detail.
In my first post on this thread I did express my views on the topic and you quoted me with your views on various points about the rich and the percentages they seem to represent. In the interest of clarity I rebutted to each one separately.

Mr K. Since as a society we could never agree as a collective on who should get paid what for the amount and quality of work they do so who decides that in your estimation?

Sorry, have to attend to work now.. will come back later in the day.

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 08 July 2010 at 3:42pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Most overrated / underrated profession is?

2 3 4 5

raj5000 39 3937 12 July 2009 at 9:39am
By U-No-Poo
Mistakes in Medical Profession

2 3 4

raj5000 31 1445 21 December 2007 at 6:41pm
By ~globetrotter~
Profession and Potential raj5000 3 375 03 July 2007 at 1:27am
By mermaid_QT
Profession Vs Hobby IdeaQueen 2 458 21 September 2006 at 11:45pm
By IdeaQueen

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.