4 ms·

You're saying that rich people should be paid less, a smaller multiple of what low paid workers get. You can make that debate, but it's not "equity vs wages".

You're saying that rich people should be paid less, a smaller multiple of what low paid workers get. You can make that debate, but it's not "equity vs wages". Someone getting paid $100M but no "equity" isn't worse off than someone getting paid $100M of valuated equity (ignoring liquidity discount blah blah)

B4CKlash 5y ago
It is 100% equity vs. wages. That’s how a financial statement works. Revenue – COGs – G&A – Taxes & Interest = Net income. That net income moves to the balance sheet as retained earnings. The higher the COGs & G&A cost the lower retained earnings and the lower the retained earnings the lower proportion of equity. The premium equity achieves is largely as result of leverage – not value*. Employees might generate 100% of the revenue but get zero credit for the growth rate. In a book value sense both seem pretty even, but we don’t value growth companies at book… We value them with a DCF model (or a different model that takes into account future earnings). At T+0 you’re probably neck and neck, but as soon as you step into T+1, T+2, etc. the equity side will get credit for income it hasn’t earned yet while the wage earner is left the same (for the better or worse). *related to my parent comment and the diminishing utility of money. Equity investors can afford to be choosey because they have wealth = aka options.