3 ms·
Well I do. I cannot imagine any worthwhile society where someone would be entitled to earn 1000 times the average. 10 times is certainly a common-sense maximum
by xeyownt 4y ago
Well I do.
I cannot imagine any worthwhile society where someone would be entitled to earn 1000 times the average. 10 times is certainly a common-sense maximum. If his only motivation for contributing to the society is to be in the 10-1000 range, I'm pretty sure the society will not miss much his contribution.
- nine_k 4y agoAn honest question: why do you care? What's your business? What downsides you see? If somebody makes enough to allow founding a new SpaceX, or a new Intel, or a new network of public libraries [1], or a new medical research center [2], I don't see why that would be bad. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_library [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes_Medical_Institut...
- tmnvix 4y agoWhile it's true that 'wealth' isn't directly correlated with claims on our world's natural resources (e.g. 'intellectual property' is included), largely it is. I would prefer not to live in a society where control of our natural resources (which nobody 'created') is concentrated in proportionally fewer and fewer hands. That to me is what economic inequality means.