>This is a moral absolutist take. No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a

>This is a moral absolutist take. No it's the take by vote. You ask a normal person whether they think it's good they will give you a normal answer. You ask a billionaire, the billionaire will give you the same answer but secretly lobby against you. It's not moral absolutist. Every economist thinks it's bad. Generally they are okay with a little bit as a necessity but the level at where it's at now is too much. >Measuring contributions is not a trivial task, even philosophically. How much does my CEO contribute versus the work of us workers? That isn't something that can be measured, so any conception of the answer to that is going to be a matter of opinion. So I'm going to say "[citation needed]" on that one, and arguably there's a "[philosophical justification needed]" as well. I never said it was trivial nor did I say it could be easily measured. But on a grand scale we know it's occurring. It's very trivial to see. Most CEO's don't deserve the salary they get, this is also trivial to see. >First, that definitely is not true, especially if you believe that a portion of people in the system are overpaid. You're way too pedantic. Of course I'm referring to a generality. 99% of people are fucked over. Very few people are overpaid. >But secondly, if you are getting "fucked over," you should leave and join a different company that does not fuck you over. All companies try to fuck you over. I just join the company that fucks me the least. I'm still getting fucked. That's what typically occurs. What you're referring to is different. You're referring to Baumol's cost disease for wage competition, which is typically not what occurs. No overall economy is governed by this but you do see it happening in small bubbles or certain industries. I would say software in the bay area has this phenomenon occurring in the slight. Wages here are higher then the rest of the world BUT wages are generally not high enough to the point where most engineers aren't getting fucked. >You are again stating this as though it's supposed to be taken as a given that it's bad. Acquiring capital and growing capital are two totally different roles and it's impossible to compare their true value to society. We need both, and it's not clear that acquiring capital (providing it) is less valuable. It is bad, but let me clarify, ownership of human capital or other things that own human capital by proxy is the thing that is bad. Just because things are hard to quantify doesn't mean we can't use our intuition to make a judgement. It should be self evident and obvious that ownership of human capital is bad but a necessary evil.