SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
LOLFrom an economic perspective I don't know the answer to this, to be honest.
Hierarchy is emergent.However, from a sociological perspective, hierarchy is unnecessary and restrictive. 'Management' is necessary, but those in that role needn't receive more than others.
Some people are better at leading than others. Being good at managing a company is more scarce a skill than what is possessed by the labourers. It is harder to find a competent CEo than a competent labourer, and CEOS are capable of adding far more vlaue to a company than any individual labourer could ever hope to.
But let me guess, you believe in the labour theory of value, don't you? hahaha pathetic.
They invest in ventures, which involves risk. You act like profits should be shared equally, but don't you think its only fair the loss is shared equally among the labourers? i.e. if a company loses $1 million and has 1000 employees, they each have their pay docked by $1000?The super rich elite don't produce anything for fucks sakes. The people they employ do the actual producing of goods and services. The rich are like fucking parasites, feeding off the labour of the bulk of people.
Business men are the ones responsible for our societies high standards of living.I'd just like to ask why people care more about the interests of the rich than everyone else? Fuck those fucking bastards.
Socialism doesn't work, no matter how romantic the rhetoric supporting it is.
The free market helps people, especially the poor.