SUS ASSIGNMENT 2
MARKING GUIDE
And finally, since we are speaking of debates, I think it is only right that I tell you
what I think about the R 1.9 billion.
NB - Before you read my opinion however, read this. I have read a number of
comments on various web pages that say that while we ask for your opinion
what we really want is for you to give us our opinion back.
Nope - this is not what we really want. What we really want is for you to give us
your opinion. Whether it is the same as mine or that of your TA is immaterial.
The point is that whatever it is, it must be well defended. If it is well defended
you will get the marks. In fact the easiest way to get 100% for an assignment
would be to convince your TA that what they had always believed was in fact
incorrect!
So here is what I think: The maxim would fail Kant’s test. Simply put, if everyone had
R 1.9 billion, no-one would be rich because wealth is relative. If you don't believe me,
I have a 50 billion Zim Dollar note lying around somewhere. The crazy number does
not make me rich. We can therefore presume Kant would have said that the maxim
was wrong, and I agree with Kant. In our society today it is not acceptable for a
person to earn so much money - my opinion.
The arguments which were put forward by many of you who said this income was
justifiable included:
1. Van Dijk is highly qualified – I’m more highly qualified and I can never
aspire to earn this sort of money;
2. He worked hard – I work hard. I work until 11 most nights these days going
through the discussions of 12 000+ sustainability and greed students and I
can never aspire to earn this sort of money;
3. He is highly experienced – Well, van Dijk is two years younger than me
which I suppose makes us about on par where experience in life is
concerned. But I have colleagues – people who have been professors for
years and are brimming with experience and they can never aspire to
earning this sort of money;
4. Some of you pointed out that the bulk of this money was not salary, but
rather share options which he cashed out. You then said that this was not
for a year's work, but for multiple years of work. This is sort of true. Of
course it is not entirely true van Dijk has never earned a cent up till
2018/2019 though. In fact he has earned hundreds of millions before this.
So to say that he earned this over multiple years is about as close to the
truth as saying he earned it in 1 year. And of course, even if I were to work
as many years as van Dijk, I could never aspire to earn this sort of money;
, 5. Some of you argued that he deserves it because he created wealth for
shareholders. No doubt this is why shareholders agreed to this. The trouble
with this is it makes out that van Dijk single handedly created the wealth.
But there are problems with this. How much of the wealth creation was due
to other employees? How much can be attributed to van Dijk just being in
the right place at the right time? How much was just due to the market
doing what markets do? How much of it was due to the movements of
Naspers’ holdings in Tencent? How much of it was due to van Dijk’s
nursery school teacher or grade 1 teacher or matric teacher or university
professor doing a great job?
6. The same sort of reasoning would work against those of you who argued
that he has created thousands of jobs. Really how much of the credit can
go to van Dijk personally? Actually, if you think about it, did Naspers really
create jobs? From where I sit, Naspers creates jobs because there are
other people who need to buy whatever it is that they sell. If van Dijk and
Naspers were to vanish tomorrow those people would still need to buy
stuff. And presumably people would still need to be employed to sell that
stuff?
7. Some of you argued that if he weren’t paid this sort of salary, he would be
head hunted by a foreign company. This implies that Naspers would not be
able to function without van Dijk. Unfortunately this would imply very poor
management on the part of van Dijk in my view. After all, van Dijk might be
hit by a bolt of lightning while playing golf tomorrow. Would Naspers
implode? I very much doubt it.
8. Some of you argued that van Dijk’s earnings were justified because of the
charity work that he does in his personal capacity or that Naspers does.
There are problems with this. Firstly, there is really not a lot of evidence out
that that van Dijk is a great philanthropist. Beyond this, there is a view that
holds that in fact much corporate charity is a form of oppression. All it
achieves is to legitimize the rich and powerful and make the poor and
downtrodden feel beholden to the rich. There is no sign whatsoever that
charity is making any significant inroads into actually solving poverty that is
for sure.
9. The most compelling argument that was presented in favour of van Dijk’s
salary was that it is good to have people earning higher salaries because
this acts as an incentive for all of us to try harder so that we can get to
where they are. And I actually do buy into this to some extent. However,
when the incentives get so very absurdly high, you are going to find that
people who can never ever hope to get there by hard work and dedication
will find cunning ways to get there by other means. If you don’t believe this,
think about the French Revolution.
So at the end of the day, I think that van Dijk’s salary (in fact executive remuneration
in general) is out of control. This I think is leading to a great deal of social unease
MARKING GUIDE
And finally, since we are speaking of debates, I think it is only right that I tell you
what I think about the R 1.9 billion.
NB - Before you read my opinion however, read this. I have read a number of
comments on various web pages that say that while we ask for your opinion
what we really want is for you to give us our opinion back.
Nope - this is not what we really want. What we really want is for you to give us
your opinion. Whether it is the same as mine or that of your TA is immaterial.
The point is that whatever it is, it must be well defended. If it is well defended
you will get the marks. In fact the easiest way to get 100% for an assignment
would be to convince your TA that what they had always believed was in fact
incorrect!
So here is what I think: The maxim would fail Kant’s test. Simply put, if everyone had
R 1.9 billion, no-one would be rich because wealth is relative. If you don't believe me,
I have a 50 billion Zim Dollar note lying around somewhere. The crazy number does
not make me rich. We can therefore presume Kant would have said that the maxim
was wrong, and I agree with Kant. In our society today it is not acceptable for a
person to earn so much money - my opinion.
The arguments which were put forward by many of you who said this income was
justifiable included:
1. Van Dijk is highly qualified – I’m more highly qualified and I can never
aspire to earn this sort of money;
2. He worked hard – I work hard. I work until 11 most nights these days going
through the discussions of 12 000+ sustainability and greed students and I
can never aspire to earn this sort of money;
3. He is highly experienced – Well, van Dijk is two years younger than me
which I suppose makes us about on par where experience in life is
concerned. But I have colleagues – people who have been professors for
years and are brimming with experience and they can never aspire to
earning this sort of money;
4. Some of you pointed out that the bulk of this money was not salary, but
rather share options which he cashed out. You then said that this was not
for a year's work, but for multiple years of work. This is sort of true. Of
course it is not entirely true van Dijk has never earned a cent up till
2018/2019 though. In fact he has earned hundreds of millions before this.
So to say that he earned this over multiple years is about as close to the
truth as saying he earned it in 1 year. And of course, even if I were to work
as many years as van Dijk, I could never aspire to earn this sort of money;
, 5. Some of you argued that he deserves it because he created wealth for
shareholders. No doubt this is why shareholders agreed to this. The trouble
with this is it makes out that van Dijk single handedly created the wealth.
But there are problems with this. How much of the wealth creation was due
to other employees? How much can be attributed to van Dijk just being in
the right place at the right time? How much was just due to the market
doing what markets do? How much of it was due to the movements of
Naspers’ holdings in Tencent? How much of it was due to van Dijk’s
nursery school teacher or grade 1 teacher or matric teacher or university
professor doing a great job?
6. The same sort of reasoning would work against those of you who argued
that he has created thousands of jobs. Really how much of the credit can
go to van Dijk personally? Actually, if you think about it, did Naspers really
create jobs? From where I sit, Naspers creates jobs because there are
other people who need to buy whatever it is that they sell. If van Dijk and
Naspers were to vanish tomorrow those people would still need to buy
stuff. And presumably people would still need to be employed to sell that
stuff?
7. Some of you argued that if he weren’t paid this sort of salary, he would be
head hunted by a foreign company. This implies that Naspers would not be
able to function without van Dijk. Unfortunately this would imply very poor
management on the part of van Dijk in my view. After all, van Dijk might be
hit by a bolt of lightning while playing golf tomorrow. Would Naspers
implode? I very much doubt it.
8. Some of you argued that van Dijk’s earnings were justified because of the
charity work that he does in his personal capacity or that Naspers does.
There are problems with this. Firstly, there is really not a lot of evidence out
that that van Dijk is a great philanthropist. Beyond this, there is a view that
holds that in fact much corporate charity is a form of oppression. All it
achieves is to legitimize the rich and powerful and make the poor and
downtrodden feel beholden to the rich. There is no sign whatsoever that
charity is making any significant inroads into actually solving poverty that is
for sure.
9. The most compelling argument that was presented in favour of van Dijk’s
salary was that it is good to have people earning higher salaries because
this acts as an incentive for all of us to try harder so that we can get to
where they are. And I actually do buy into this to some extent. However,
when the incentives get so very absurdly high, you are going to find that
people who can never ever hope to get there by hard work and dedication
will find cunning ways to get there by other means. If you don’t believe this,
think about the French Revolution.
So at the end of the day, I think that van Dijk’s salary (in fact executive remuneration
in general) is out of control. This I think is leading to a great deal of social unease
