> Would it be better if high-performing people worked for lower-performing companies? Per my value system, what we want is to match people to work that they a

> Would it be better if high-performing people worked for lower-performing companies? Per my value system, what we want is to match people to work that they are good at, and for any particular ability, we want to match people who have more ability to societal needs that are more important. "Higher performing company" does not equate to "more important company". I'm glad Einstein chose to be a physicist rather than be a Facebook engineer (or whatever the equivalent was in his time). I don't believe anyone should be billionaires or fabulously wealthy, but if I did, it would be people like Einstein, not Mark Zuckerberg, or people like Musk who would have paid Einstein some minimal market-driven amount more than Princeton would have (from the government subsidies Must gets) while convincing people he (Musk) is responsible for all the great technological advances resulting from Einstein's work, keeping all the profits for himself and pouring them into even more extractive schemes. > Wouldn't an inability for higher-performing workers to move to higher-performing companies reflect a lack of worker freedom? Doesn't the inability of lower-performing workers to not be coerced into working for slave wages under slave conditions represent a lack of freedom? What about the children of lower-performing workers who are locked into poorer schools, poorer nutrition, poorer environments, less quality time with their parents and many other disadvantages? And what if higher-performing companies are those that are best at extracting the most value out of bottom-level workers, effectively acting as intermediate slave owners for consumers who get cheap goods on the backs of bottom-level workers and their lack of freedom?