4 ms·
Yes, yes, wealth distribution. On the latter, these days it's getting too risky for people who aren't already wealthy to innovate, and disrupt. Corporations ar
by spronkey 11y ago
Yes, yes, wealth distribution.
On the latter, these days it's getting too risky for people who aren't already wealthy to innovate, and disrupt. Corporations are getting increasingly large, and the number of viable competitors in some of the more prominent industries is generally not increasing - because the entry cost is so high.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoLack of competition gives companies more money to throw around, some of which will make it's way to employees. It's the competitive industries where wages need to remain low. Goldman and Google have a 20% profit margin and pay their employees well. Walmart has about 3% and lots of competition.
- spronkey 11y agoPretty sure both Goldman and Google pay their employees market rates.
- makomk 11y agoLess competition also means less competition between employers for employees. Sure, they have more money and they could give some of it to their employees, but there's no reason to. Goldman and Google are employing a relatively small number of highly-skilled people, which means they have to pay them more than Wal-mart pays its retail staff. Their pay is almost exactly what those people would expect to be paid for the same jobs elsewhere. For example, it turns out that Google pays their software engineers only slightly more than Wal-mart (really, look it up) despite demanding higher skill levels from employees.