3 ms·
Even without referring to wealth inequality, "capitalism" is supposed to be a sort of "economic meritocracy", i.e. those who get a lot of money did so by their
by drauh 11y ago
Even without referring to wealth inequality, "capitalism" is supposed to be a sort of "economic meritocracy", i.e. those who get a lot of money did so by their abilities. (I hesitate to use the word "work".) Or, at least, that's what I understand modern capitalists to say.
The crucial thing here is the stagnation of the middle class. There is no way 1 CEO can produce the output of 300 employees. Is it socialist to expect that the people who actually make the stuff to share in the gains? Or maybe that's communist.
- true_religion 11y agoI don't know about, and probably can't defend the idea that CEOs can produce outsized benefits compared to rank-and-file employees. However a poor CEO can easily waste more money than 300 salaries just by choosing the wrong product direction, or keeping a strategy going long after its not beneficial. So perhaps pay is so high just to find a CEO whom isn't a bad hire.
- jogjayr 11y ago> So perhaps pay is so high just to find a CEO whom isn't a bad hire. There's some theories that posit that high CEO pay isn't to reward the CEO for their work directly but to motivate everyone under the CEO to work their ass off in hopes of one day becoming the CEO. Motivating the workforce in this manner makes the company sufficiently more productive as to make it worth paying those high salaries; even if the CEO doesn't actually produce anything themselves. I believe it's called a tournament-style system or something. It's pretty bleak-sounding.