4 ms·

So by that reasoning, LeBron James (who earns a salary of $37 million) isn't a better basketball player than Maurice Harkless ($11 million); he's just "motivate

So by that reasoning, LeBron James (who earns a salary of $37 million) isn't a better basketball player than Maurice Harkless ($11 million); he's just "motivated by power and money". I wonder how you would take it if someone offered you a small fraction of your current salary and suggested you were "motivated by money" if you didn't accept it? Are you also arguing that it's fundamentally impossible for any business executive to be as valuable to a business as LeBron James is to the Lakers?

ModernMech 7y ago
If I were paid a tiny fraction of what I make now I wouldn't be able to feed myself. Someone making 50 mil vs 10 mil is able to take care of all their human needs either way. I'm motivated to make the money I do by my desire to stay alive. But this 50 mil vs 10 mil argument isn't in a vacuum. It's 50mil vs 10mil for them versus $7 an hour for those at the bottom. People motivated to take those salaries when that kind of inequality exists aren't exactly looking out for the greater good. I'm arguing that the people who actually make the things and provide the services that make companies valuable are the workers at the bottom. The CEOs at the top are really good at squeezing every last drop of productivity out of them for minuscule pay and benefits, and trashing the environment whenever possible. That's the skillset of a psycho/sociopath. These people tend to do things like, I don't know, keep knowledge about the possibility of a deadly virus outbreak on a cruise ship from passengers.