No, everyone else in the thread was making a bunch of arguements about how CEOs are overpaid. That is the argument that requires justification.
And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims. I don't need to make any claims, if you aren't going to make any, because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo.
The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line.
Because unless there is some good reason, it probably isn't, for the sole reason that it is the status quo.
Other people are the ones making the claim here, that the current state of the world is for some reason wrong.
It is perfectly fine, and normal, to assume that the status quo, for an arbitrary issue, is ok, in the absence of evidence that it is bad.
The burden of proof is on the people who are claiming that the status quo is wrong, and needs to be changed.
Why? Because in the vast majority of situations, the status quo is the status quo for a reason. Because if the status quo was wrong, then people would probably find a reason to change it, regarding any arbitrary issue.
So I maintain that the burden of proof is on the people who want to change the status quo, not on the people who want to maintain it.
There are a million different ways that we could change the world, and you have to make an argument for why we should make the change.
And I cannot prove a negative here, as for why there are zero bad things about the status quo.
>> Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to society at a rate hundreds or thousands of times higher than the rest of the people?
> (you) Yes. That is because of of the impact of their actions.
Any chance you could clear up my confusion?
You answered "yes" to the question "Do you really argue that the people in the top 0.01% are contributing to society at a rate hundreds or thousands of times higher than the rest of the people?", and yet now you seem to be claiming that you have not asserted that they are producing disproportionate value.
> And the only claims that I make, are in response to other claims.
They are still claims.
> I don't need to make any claims
But you did.
> ... because I can just stick with the status quo, merely because it is the status quo.
Then you should have done that, rather than falsely claiming you did it after the fact.
> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line.
True. It is also true that you have a burden of claim, because you also made an assertion.
"> The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the current status quo, of CEO compensation is for some reason, out of line.
True."
Awesome! So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this. (And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we can show any evidence, on anything, or something?)
That is the main point that I am trying to make and is the only claim that I really care about. The people who said this, have not proven their statements, and you seem to agree that they have not established their claims, great!
And I am glad that we were able to come to an agreement on the main thing I was trying to explain which is that the people saying this have not proven their statements to be true. :)
> So you agree with me that the people who were claiming that CEO compensation too high have not shown this to be true, and therefore they have not proven that we should be worrying about this.
Well, not really.
As I said before: "If you consider a measurement of their financial compensation to be proportional to their contribution to society. In reality, the actual impact of their actions is unknown - such things are beyond our ability to measure, we can only speculate."
There is no proof either way that we should or should not be "worrying about this". Whether we should be worrying about this is for voters to decide. Well, assuming Democracy wasn't a complete facade that is. In lieu of Democracy, about all individuals can do is bitch and moan, and hope the conversation makes it into mainstream discourse, and perhaps something might be done out of shame or fear.
> And that apparently you are an ultimate skeptic, who does not believe that we can show any evidence, on anything, or something?
It can rarely be demonstrated with any sort of accuracy what any one individual contributes to society.
> That is the main point that I am trying to make and is the only claim that I really care about.
This is dishonest revisionism - you made several specific points. If you'd like, you can admit that outright, or you can continue to write in a disingenuous manner. Up to you.
That is true, but I made no argument. You on the other hand, seemed to be explaining that such arguments are wrong, at least as I understood you.
> I can use your unknown argument to support even higher compensation, just as much.
Just as much, which is precisely zero.
You seem to be claiming that they are producing value, that needs to be compensated. You have no evidence, yet you speak as if you do.