Philosophy Discussion Forums

LuckyR wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 3:07 am I disagree. Supply and demand explains the difference in compensation between a worker on the shop floor and the engineer who designs the product or the guy in marketing who sells them. Very few call that difference disproportionate. But CEO salaries are disproportionately high because they are set by Board members who are likely going to be future CEOs somewhere. That's a form of nepotism.

I have said the same thing, in different words. Oddly, no-one heard me, either.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 8:46 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 12th, 2025, 11:36 am So my question stands, I think. What is it about a CEO that is worth so much more than the floor-sweeper?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 12th, 2025, 4:21 pm You are an old man (even older than me) and you still haven't worked out the basics of life? Consider the concept of leverage. Consider the concepts of talent and ability. Of capability. We are not blank slates, or readily interchangeable. Some people really are smarter, more astute, more talented, more capable.

Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt due to a change of leadership? Have you seen successful companies go bankrupt because a floor-sweeper left?

Alright. My question isn't a question at all. It's a diplomatic way of saying, "this is not right", and asking why this should be so.

And I have seen companies go bust because employees made simple mistakes. Mistakes that they shouldn't've made. But they did, and my employer disappeared within months.

Again, how can you be so unaware of life's dynamics at your age? How can you be on the Earth for the best part of seven decades and now realise that life is inherently not fair?

What company goes bust from a junior employee on the bottom rung making a mistake? Did a visiting dignitary slip on a wet floor, just mopped, resulting in a catastrophic law suit? Hmm, I'm dubious. However, many fall due to poor decisions made at the top.

The inequality issue is driven by globalism and tech - wages suppressed by outsourcing to OS workers on low wages or via mass immigration, and intelligent tech.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 5:19 pm ...how can you be so unaware of life's dynamics at your age? How can you be on the Earth for the best part of seven decades and now realise that life is inherently not fair?

There are two types of "not fair". The first is just 'real life', doing what it does. The second is unfairness implemented by humans. The latter we can change, or prevent, if we choose to. It is these latter situations upon which I comment.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 7:25 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 5:19 pm ...how can you be so unaware of life's dynamics at your age? How can you be on the Earth for the best part of seven decades and now realise that life is inherently not fair?

There are two types of "not fair". The first is just 'real life', doing what it does. The second is unfairness implemented by humans. The latter we can change, or prevent, if we choose to. It is these latter situations upon which I comment.

What makes you think that humans en masse can control themselves? At what time in history has there been even a skerrick of evidence that millions of humans can control what they do in totality?

We are sophisticated in some ways but we are still animals subject to our, and our environments' natures.

The idea that massive groups of humans without a hierarchy can operate cohesively enough to compete with more structured groups is obviously misguided and extraordinarily naive. What do you think all the bleating about colonialism stems from? More organised groups out-competing less organised ones.

Humans are evolving. As we form groups that are unprecedented in number, societies change structure. What we are seeing is that, in today's huge societies, the groups are splitting into an executive wing and the masses, not wildly unlike the evolution of nervous systems from loose nets to concentrated structures (ie. brains).

You will be pleased to know that this situation is suited to Marxist societal structures, where most people are relatively equally poor while a tiny minority are incredibly rich, with very little middle class - as is the case in every communist society. The west seems to be moving in that direction.

It's easier to complain than to find solutions. If you implemented a huge tax increase on the rich in a country or state, what do you think would happen?

Humans cannot avoid hierarchy and structure; do you agree? Yes, I agree with the question. Humans, the minute we are born, have hierarchy and structure. The parents i.e., Father and Mother. Then siblings and it clearly shows that it started from where we come from, before we are exposed to the outer space hierarchy and structure that constitute being well socialized.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 7:25 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 5:19 pm ...how can you be so unaware of life's dynamics at your age? How can you be on the Earth for the best part of seven decades and now realise that life is inherently not fair?

There are two types of "not fair". The first is just 'real life', doing what it does. The second is unfairness implemented by humans. The latter we can change, or prevent, if we choose to. It is these latter situations upon which I comment.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 5:14 pm What makes you think that humans en masse can control themselves? At what time in history has there been even a skerrick of evidence that millions of humans can control what they do in totality?

At *all* times in history! But it isn't obvious to any individual, as the conduct we're talking about here is across all of humanity. It works the same way that humans in a shopping centre move around the place like fluid flows down pipes (etc).

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 5:14 pm We are sophisticated in some ways but we are still animals subject to our, and our environments' natures.

The idea that massive groups of humans without a hierarchy can operate cohesively enough to compete with more structured groups is obviously misguided and extraordinarily naive. What do you think all the bleating about colonialism stems from? More organised groups out-competing less organised ones.

Humans are evolving. As we form groups that are unprecedented in number, societies change structure. What we are seeing is that, in today's huge societies, the groups are splitting into an executive wing and the masses, not wildly unlike the evolution of nervous systems from loose nets to concentrated structures (ie. brains).

You will be pleased to know that this situation is suited to Marxist societal structures, where most people are relatively equally poor while a tiny minority are incredibly rich, with very little middle class - as is the case in every communist society. The west seems to be moving in that direction.

It's easier to complain than to find solutions. If you implemented a huge tax increase on the rich in a country or state, what do you think would happen?

The hierarchy is there, in our minds, but not 'out there'. The hierarchy is what we imagine; the actual humans, and their behaviour, are both actually there, in the real Universe. Our perception of hierarchy is our interpretation of the observed facts, not of those facts themselves.

I don't think this has a great deal to do with Marxism, or any political ideology.

Fanisa Ndhabambi wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 6:55 pm Humans cannot avoid hierarchy and structure; do you agree? Yes, I agree with the question. Humans, the minute we are born, have hierarchy and structure. The parents i.e., Father and Mother. Then siblings and it clearly shows that it started from where we come from, before we are exposed to the outer space hierarchy and structure that constitute being well socialized.

I wonder if what you describe is *connection*, not "hierarchy and structure"?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 15th, 2025, 9:39 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 7:25 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 13th, 2025, 5:19 pm ...how can you be so unaware of life's dynamics at your age? How can you be on the Earth for the best part of seven decades and now realise that life is inherently not fair?

There are two types of "not fair". The first is just 'real life', doing what it does. The second is unfairness implemented by humans. The latter we can change, or prevent, if we choose to. It is these latter situations upon which I comment.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 5:14 pm What makes you think that humans en masse can control themselves? At what time in history has there been even a skerrick of evidence that millions of humans can control what they do in totality?

At *all* times in history! 😉 But it isn't obvious to any individual, as the conduct we're talking about here is across all of humanity. It works the same way that humans in a shopping centre move around the place like fluid flows down pipes (etc).

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 14th, 2025, 5:14 pm We are sophisticated in some ways but we are still animals subject to our, and our environments' natures.

The idea that massive groups of humans without a hierarchy can operate cohesively enough to compete with more structured groups is obviously misguided and extraordinarily naive. What do you think all the bleating about colonialism stems from? More organised groups out-competing less organised ones.

Humans are evolving. As we form groups that are unprecedented in number, societies change structure. What we are seeing is that, in today's huge societies, the groups are splitting into an executive wing and the masses, not wildly unlike the evolution of nervous systems from loose nets to concentrated structures (ie. brains).

You will be pleased to know that this situation is suited to Marxist societal structures, where most people are relatively equally poor while a tiny minority are incredibly rich, with very little middle class - as is the case in every communist society. The west seems to be moving in that direction.

It's easier to complain than to find solutions. If you implemented a huge tax increase on the rich in a country or state, what do you think would happen?

The hierarchy is there, in our minds, but not 'out there'. The hierarchy is what we imagine; the actual humans, and their behaviour, are both actually there, in the real Universe. Our perception of hierarchy is our interpretation of the observed facts, not of those facts themselves.

I don't think this has a great deal to do with Marxism, or any political ideology. 🤔

How silly. Everything we perceive is in our minds - that's how minds work. You perceive something and then - magic! - it's "in our minds". Mere interpretation. By your description, the moment something is in our minds, it no longer exists - it becomes the idea. Uh uh.

Hierarchies are simply part of life, of existence. Most social species have hierarchies. There are hierarchies within hierarchies too, like Russian dolls. Strata forms in the Earth, based on a hierarchy from oldest to newest. The solar system has a gravity hierarchy based on size ... sun > planets > moons > comets > asteroids > grains. In an ecosystem, a mountain is more influential than a hill, which has more influence than a hillock, which trumps mounds, which are more influential than divots.

Hierarchic human societies exist because they proved to be more durable than anarchic societies.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 15th, 2025, 3:39 pm How silly.

<regretful shrug>
As you wish.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑January 16th, 2025, 8:25 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑January 15th, 2025, 3:39 pm How silly.

<regretful shrug>
As you wish. 👍

I appreciate that you would prefer that the world be a place where everyone is equal but the fact is that some humans are objectively better people than others, resulting in unequal outcomes.

I do not approve of ideology being given greater primacy than physical and historical reality.