BigRedBuster
Well-known member
I can agree with that.
Bit, are you in the camp that believes Frost really doesn’t do anything and is easily replaced?
Income Inequality
- Thread starter BigRedBuster
- Start date
Bit, are you in the camp that believes Frost really doesn’t do anything and is easily replaced?
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
But, they (and Frost) don’t do anything and are easily replaced.
Got it.
I never said the company could survive without lower end workers. In fact, I’m the one that has said everyone is vital from m the stock holders, to the CEO, to the entry level employee.
You are the one that tried saying the CEO doesn’t do anything and is easily replaced. Which is BS.
Big Red 40
New member
@BRB Nope i think he will do his job well and make himself very irreplaceable. I think Frost loves this place enough he'd probably work for less than 7 million a year, but he would be dumb to take any less, when our system has decided that's what hes worth.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Great post. Each of our work is valued based on how easily we can be replaced. That’s how supply and demand work.
Big Red 40
New member
Everyone knows how the system/economics works, no need to keep explaining. Everything in life revolves around work, and money, and the only worth a person has is is their productivity, marketability, blah blah blah. If heard it a million times and its still crap to me. I don't know how old some of you are, but you will eventually realize that the important things in life really happen after work, not during, and the measure of a person has nothing to do with how much money they have. Hundreds of millions of people in this country are not going to become business owners, corporate big shots, investors, trust fund babies, or any of the other cookie cutter things society deems "worthy" of riches. We know were going to have to work for someone else, who's going to take the lions share of everything, and give us the least they can. That sucks but we put up with it because there's little, or no, choice in most cases. The problem comes when the top skims too much, and dribbles down too little, and i think were going that direction , if not already there, in this country. I think most people would be happy in a system where the rich can get "theirs" as long as we get "ours" too. It was that way for a long time in this country, but not so much any more.
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver
Active member
Where are you getting this? Upward mobility in Denmark is slightly higher than in the US. (The linked article discusses combining the strengths of the US and Danish systems.)
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. My post about CEO's, shareholders, and execs being easy to replace was in response to a post that labor is easily replaced. Do you think CEO's, shareholders, and execs are any harder to replace than workers? I don't. Sure, there's some exceptional CEO's out there who may be hard to replace with an equal quality, but the same can be said for workers.
You keep coming back to Frost, but he's the exception, not the rule. You're ignoring all the Derek Dooley's and Mike Riley's of the coaching world. Think of it this way: if Frost was no longer the coach, would Nebraska be unable to fill the HC position because there's a lack of people who they could hire? If Frost didn't take the Nebraska HC gig, would we be without a HC today because they are so rare?
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
Do you think it’s harder to replace a coach like TO or Frost than finding the next great O lineman?
i could easily argue that a good coach is a lot more rare than a good player.
RedDenver
Active member
Maybe, but I doubt it. Finding the next Tommie Frazier just as hard as finding the next great HC.
But again, that's somewhat beside the point, as I've said that there are of course exceptional individuals who would be hard to replace with an equally exceptional individual, whether that's a HC, CEO, or welder. What I'm talking about is on average or across the board.
Additionally, there's the huge difference in income, which is where this discussion started from.
jsneb83
New member
I believe the advancement of automation and technology has a lot to do with the increase in income inequality. This has made demand for production and other lower level work go down and also has made it less valuable. Whereas a CEO's job has remained relatively unchanged, therefore the difference in the value between the two is much larger today than it was back in the day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mierin
Donor
Yep. And it will keep widening, and the haves will keep saying if they pay less taxes and are less regulated it will help the have nots, and lots of the have nots will go merrily along as long as there’s a carrot.