Now why should it be any different? There are a few companies experimenting with different hierarchies, hierarchy-less, and different role/position value assignments (tied somewhat with hierarchy), but in general I think pitch-forking the "1%" is just the "herd entitlement".
If you're on the bottom and don't like it, then get on top; this day and age that is actually possible. In history prior, you had to be born into the right name or granted a monopoly by the empire or king in order be "financially independent" (or thieve). In the USA you just had to have a great idea and the persistence to get people to buy into your idea.
NOW all you need is an internet connection, some free software, time, and some free fucking education to build financial independence.
Income mobility is actually lower in the USA than in Europe, fwiw, and most startups are founded by people from middle-class or better families. Part of the reason is that the free education is, especially in poorer areas, not great: high-school computer curricula are in a sad state. Another part of the reason is that people with a family safety net find it easier to start companies. A third is that family connections help, whether it's for "friends & family" rounds of funding, or for product introductions (see: Bill Gates).
Oh I'm sure there are difficulties in our day and age, I don't mean to trivialize it - but the idea that "people being paid $20M a year while I write code and get paid $140K a year is unfair" strikes me as ridiculous. The resource available to people in the modern time is far richer and available than any other time in history.
Sure there are a lot of hurdles, but if you want to be that executive being paid millions, you can do it - whether you're a programmer, a writer, whatever.
Following your reasoning, there is no reason to criticise any entitlments. "MEPs have huge salaries?" "Mayors are giving social housing to their families?" "Government Railway employees get gold-plated pensions?": "Stop complaining! Just become one of them!"
I'm curious. Do you only say "stop complaining" when it's an issue you don't personally have a problem with? Or do you legitimately believe that no one should ever complain about anything?
If you don't think an injustice exists, wonderful, you should argue that point. Something like "Stop complaining, because..." Or don't argue that point and don't participate in the conversation. But the endless "stop complaining because I personally don't have a problem with this" is highly annoying.
I guess I'm not getting what you're not understanding, Ixiaus.
If you accept the premise that an injustice exists, of what use is it to argue repetitively that one should "get on top", if one has a problem with it? You seem to assume that the OP is saying "It's not fair, why can't I be on top??" when he's not arguing anything of the sort. Not everything is about winning.
Is it possible that you're presenting a clever, sardonic caricature of an entrepreneur, and the joke went completely over my head? If so, you got me! Good one!
Oh I understand clearly, there are lots of people on here complaining about injustices and that someone needs to fix them. I'm telling them that they are being ridiculous and should just go do what they want to do and that no one (including the "leeches") is stopping them.
I don't accept the premise that an injustice exists. Someone being "on the bottom" isn't an injustice, it's a social role. It's a social role that if someone doesn't like being there, they can decide and act to elevate themselves into a different social role (one with more power? one with more freedom? one with more money? one with no attachements? there's a lot of different social roles in our society - none of them are being done an injustice but by the people that stay within their role and complain about it).
I never said anything is about winning. Everything is about how happy you are, clearly the OP is unhappy about something and all of the words written so far saying "stop complaining, go build something yourself and exemplify the morality you think is right" are totally spot on.
If you're on the bottom and don't like it, then get on top; this day and age that is actually possible. In history prior, you had to be born into the right name or granted a monopoly by the empire or king in order be "financially independent" (or thieve). In the USA you just had to have a great idea and the persistence to get people to buy into your idea.
NOW all you need is an internet connection, some free software, time, and some free fucking education to build financial independence.