There is a point of view framed in things being equitable too. The motivations are more broad, balance of society, etc...
Then again, the members may simply need more too.
Costs and risks relative to income can change, or are not well balanced. This is a standard of living, needs argument.
What differentiates it from greed is the fact than an answer can come from either side of the equation. Lower costs and risks can work the same as more compensation does.
None of this, nor my earlier comment speaks to whether greed is good or bad. It can be, or not and context matters.
The unspoken assumption behind this line of thinking is "if an entity/person can afford to pay more, the entity/person on the other side of the deal deserves more". This reasoning is applied to arguments about other things as well, such as taxes.
The problems with it become apparent when you realize that the standard isn't applied everywhere and is really impossible to evaluate fairly, so the conclusions are derived from personal ethics and concepts of "fairness" instead.
As an example, "they can afford it" is often used as an argument in favor of higher taxes on "the wealthy" (whatever that means), yet nobody says "you can afford to pay starbucks more for your coffee". You could have certainly afforded to pay more for your car or house or macbook, so why didn't you if "you can afford it" is the bar? Likewise many SV tech workers could "afford" to take pay cuts, but nobody's arguing that - why not, if "you can afford it" is the measure?
There's the asymmetry at play; with their immense wealth, these corporations can more easily pay employees more and have less effect on their bottom line- though perhaps simple math will prove this point wrong- than individual workers choosing to take pay cuts. But while this is a good discussion, I don't see how any of this differentiates being greedy from being a rational actor or homo economicus.
It's rational in the sense that you'd seek to maximize your comp. But the reasoning of "they can afford it, therefore I should get more" is not a rational argument because (1) it makes enormous and unstated assumptions about what a company can/will/should do with its money and (2) the conclusion doesn't logically flow from the premise. It's underpants gnome reasoning, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that fills in the "???" step.
But for the individual, it is rational to try to maximize their own share of the profit, is it not? And since we're talking about immensely wealthy corporations, some of which have nice margins and billions of dollars of cash in reserve, it's a bit of an intuitive step. To go back to your previous post, deserve's got nothing to do with it. The rational individual would seek to optimize their share, even if it involves questioning accepted wisdom.
> But for the individual, it is rational to try to maximize their own share of the profit, is it not?
Depends on how you measure the profit. "Profit per employee" is an abstract measurement and for most people has little bearing to what they themselves do daily. Just because a company's profit per employee happens to be $x doesn't mean you personally generated $x - you could have generated a lot more, or perhaps been a net cost instead (projects fail and get cancelled all the time). You could make an argument that if you build a wildly successful feature you should get a big share of the profit, but only if you take a pay cut when things go poorly. Who wants that? This already happens to an extent in big companies btw, people on successful projects get promoted and more cash & stock so in a way they are sharing in the success.
> And since we're talking about immensely wealthy corporations, some of which have nice margins and billions of dollars of cash in reserve, it's a bit of an intuitive step.
This is just another way of saying "they can afford it", which I discussed previously.
>And since we're talking about immensely wealthy corporations, some of which have nice margins and billions of dollars of cash in reserve...
A majority of Americans face cost and risk exposure that exceeds their income. This state of affairs is unnecessary, and unacceptable. I would also argue it is lowering our general standard of living, ability to compete globally, and is expensive, due to the general savings associated with cost and risk prevention or management being significant compared to dealing with one or both post fact.
The discussion becomes about ending the unnecessary and undesirable mismatch between income and cost and risk exposure. It also centers on needs, leaving wants for a later time.
When this frame is in play, few people actually care how wealthy corporations are, margins, cash, or any of it really.
What they do care about is whether their income makes sense. Is the product of their labor, assuming they can even find jobs right now, appropriate given their cost and risk exposure?
It also becomes about "they can't afford it." And a majority of the nation can't. This is true for more Americans every year for decades now, and that all adds right up.
Today, the numbers are hard to ignore. COVID escalated things too. Not helpful.
No matter what any of us actually thinks is equitable, market rates, or any other thing, the hard fact is those costs and risks come due.
Someone pays or people die, suffer losses, harm. And those things happen because "They can't afford it." And for any given person, there are only so many labor hours available too.
Until trends change, and material improvements happen, the number of people as well as their zeal to improve will only grow.
People in this scenario really don't have options. If they did, we would not be having these kinds of discussions, nor see the ongoing escalation of them as we are today.
But we are having them, and they are escalating.
To be perfectly clear, some of this discussion is about people whose cost and risk exposure is well beneath their income. That is a wants discussion. Nothing wrong with wants, nor people getting after them however they can.
That is also not inclusive.
Very large numbers of people face costs and risks that exceed their income, and that is a needs discussion. There is a lot wrong with needs being unmet. That is the unacceptable and unnecessary part too.
Both should be represented in these labor discussions, and often they are not.
What remedy makes sense?
One idea was all this growth, innovation, wealth accumulation was supposed to make it cheaper to live, exist and show up for work.
That has not happened.
Cost and risk exposure exceeds income for most people. Sure, there are ways to manage it cost wise, but risks, and in particular, medical risks have grave consequences.
So how do we make it cheaper to live? How do we reduce risk exposure?
Or, maybe that is simply not possible to do.
How do we match income to costs and risks then?
Either will work. Higher income or lower costs and risks. Could be a combination too.
Which is it?
Notably, however it goes, success means far fewer people will actually care about wealthy corporations and such because they have a reasonable life to live and are quite happy to live it.
