I agree with the general thrust of what you’re saying, but your comment includes several contradictions. You imply that $400,000 a year is far too high a salary for a president of a company, but then you suggest that we should pay top dollar for a competent leader. You say we shouldn’t be angry at the manager making $40,000 more than us, but you also say to remove unnecessary middlemen.
Generally, I think all of that is unnecessary considerations. As you said, some things just require a lot of people to physically be present for oversight and require a lot of regulations. Where these things are necessary for society, they should be paid for at least in part by taxes. It is immoral to have the bulk of this labor be done on the backs of uncompensated people. It is also immoral to set them up such that only the very wealthy can afford them. The only way to reconcile these two economic facts are through making them a publicly funded service.
I agree with the general thrust of what you’re saying, but your comment includes several contradictions. You imply that $400,000 a year is far too high a salary for a president of a company, but then you suggest that we should pay top dollar for a competent leader. You say we shouldn’t be angry at the manager making $40,000 more than us, but you also say to remove unnecessary middlemen.
Generally, I think all of that is unnecessary considerations. As you said, some things just require a lot of people to physically be present for oversight and require a lot of regulations. Where these things are necessary for society, they should be paid for at least in part by taxes. It is immoral to have the bulk of this labor be done on the backs of uncompensated people. It is also immoral to set them up such that only the very wealthy can afford them. The only way to reconcile these two economic facts are through making them a publicly funded service.