Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Neal Stevens
The assembly line guy chose his job, he made the choices in education and his character and level of ambition determined where he is. That boss makes decisions that affect the whole company, decisions that could make or lose millions. If it's so easy, go ahead, start your own company, and feel free to pay the line workers $100,000 a year. No one is stopping you, but you.
|
I also did not say that workers should be payed manager's fees, I said that top managers often earn too much. so instead of paying the worker 100.000, I would pay the manager maybe ten times or 20 times as much as the worker, depending on the company we talk about. And not hundreds of thosuands, and millions. That he makes decisions, is no argument. as I said, if he fails, and does not commit a crime, he will not be held responsible: he will loose nothing but his job. when you have earned alraeyd a million, the loss of your job hardly is life-threatening. For the worker, it is a most substantial threat to his family.
you also said that the worker choosed his job, and choosed his education. Sorry, but this idealization of social realities is perceived in europe as a typical anglosaxon tradition. Most workers are there, because they do not have a choice. But often, social realities are that of an almost predetermined fate. People do not have equal chances. Your social origin in the overwhelming majority of cases is a most decisive variable that heavily influences your fate. What you said sounds a bit of the "from dishwasher to millionaire" story. That is mone of America'S grweat myth's, it is almost a mythological basis. Sometimes , RARELY!, that works. If fate helps, and if you are lucky. And for every winner, I tell you, there are thousands of loosers. Some loose by their own fault. Most do not. They loose from the very beginning for being poor, raised in poor families, in social underclass, having less options available. there are also links between mental capacity, and the social environemnt you get raised in. . Ask some social scientist on the undeniable statistical links between social milieus and future perspectives. that kind of data is old news, really. What you say is not only absurd, but an offending of millions and millions who try and fight and try and try more - but simply can't make it, they lack the chance, or they fail to fulfill preconditions they cannot compensate by their own possebilities. We do not start into life, having equal chances. that is a myth, too. A very mean and cynical myth, I would add.
You see it far too simple. Please do not make the mistake the judge the vast crowd by the bad examples set up by the few who live like parasites from social wellfare - such dirtbags exist, yes. But in no way they classify for being labelled as the majority, or even a major portion of the crowd. If you don't believe me, come over here. I may be out of that business for a longer while now, but I still can show you around in Frankfurt, Berlin, to make you change your mind. I am sure it is not much different in America: the term "working poor" was formed there, not here.
If one amongst thousands makes it from rags to riches, then this hardly can be an example illustrating that the system functions if people only would work hard enough. If it proves anything, than that 999 do not come through. Many work until braking point - and still do not have enough. chances for thei children will be even worse than they were for the parents. Their numbers a rapidly increasing. If you do not see that in your country, i promise you it is only a question of time until you will see it nevertheless.
I am not arguing that every man should be made equal, and no differences anymore. But I argue that we need to try to reduces differences to reasonable dimensions, especially if the present situation is increasingly harmful for more and more millions of people.