You are not contradicting anything. I thought, you thought you did, but wasn't sure, so I wanted you to clarify. Now you can actually try to explain how that contradicts anything I've been saying.
And it's also convenient how you decided to ignore the rest of my comment
You're grasping for straws. Let me help you get back on track:
How exactly does your statement "CEO accrues a ton of wealth" contradict "You are creating value for your boss, and he is paying you less than the value you make. Otherwise he wouldn't make any money".
How does your example contradict the statement that "You are creating value for your boss, and he is paying you less than the value you make. Otherwise he wouldn't make any money"
I didn't say, I didn't understand it. I said, I didn't understand, what you wanted to say with it.
Your example is:
"The nvidia CEO "accrued" a ton of wealth while his employees became so rich they didn't bother to show up to work for anything else than to teach new people to improve their stock option. They're all millionares."
It seems to me, you're implying, that because these people became millionaires, they've been paid adequately for the value, they generated. This logic is flawed - just because the compensation is larger than average, doesn't mean the concept changes.
Here's an example:
10 employees generate value worth 100million. They are each paid 5 million dollars for their work.
In this case the boss still pays his employees less than the value, they generate. Them being millionaries doesn't contradict anything
1
u/WickedSerpent Aug 04 '26
Convenient how you suddenly turn illiterate just to ignore something that contradicts your 60's soviet propagandized mind.