Keep waiting then, because it's not going to happen. I would never suggest anything of the sort. It's not nearly creative enough of a solution, for one thing.
"...that you've earned. I don't see a problem."
Just because you don't see a problem, doesn't mean that there isn't one.
So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't.
"what was he willing to risk all of his time and money to run the business?"
Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. See: Venture Capitalism.
"It sounds to me like he wants the same amount of profits as an owner, but none of the risks."
This is a gross misrepresentation of the author's position.
"If the engineer is under contract and using the resources, money, and lab of his employer to create this radical new process, he is getting paid a salary he agreed upon (which wasn't by force)."
He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it.
"If he is using all of his own equipment, under no contract, it can make him very rich."
Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else.
"I don't really see a problem with anything you are describing, except your sense of entitlement."
This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever.
"Do you actually think I believe there isn't anything new? I was merely pointing out that there are thousands of years of history and experience in the economic, finance, and politics department, which can show you what works and what doesn't (and if your idea is radically new or just a rehash of something old)."
This much is blatantly obvious. And?
"There are more important social issues to address than some guy that is whining about his life."
More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully.
First, your CEO, it's true, did not likely put financial risk on the line to take the position obtained. But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?
Secondly, your point on coercion. Yes, you can certainly argue that the engineer was "forced" at some level to take a job, and thus some salary. But in a world living with people you will never be free of all influences or coercion. Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion.
"But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?"
This does not address the argument that rewards are being disproportionately bestowed on someone who took no risks, and arguably, produces less wealth or value on the whole than the people who actually do the work of creating and building products and services.
"Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion."
Not at all. Coercion implies a disparity of leverage. The company has money (the means of survival, in this society) at their disposal. The employees do not, or else they wouldn't be looking for a job, would they?
In the worst case scenario the company doesn't get to make a product but still retains it's money, but the would-be employees have nothing, and are either reduced to subsistence level living, the charity of others, or simply starve.
"So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't."
It's not for you to decide, because it's not your money. Why do you think you should have the right to decide how someone else (company or person) spends their money? If you don't like this fact, work somewhere else and don't buy their products.
"Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. "
Many people also don't need VC. See: every company that's bootstrapped.
"He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it."
You seem to have lots of opinions on our current system, but no idea how you could make it better.
"Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else."
It depends on the industry. Have you heard of bank loans?
"This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever."
I don't need you to state it. I can see it all over your posts. Using words like "ad hominem" doesn't change this fact.
"This much is blatantly obvious. And?"
you probably haven't actually looked into it. If you had, you might not
"More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully."
I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what that word means. I read the article carefully. He's trying to make it look like the world is a terrible place based on his own experiences. If you based our entire system on his experience, it will look bad. However, when you take a step back and look at it as a whole, it's pretty damn good.
Keep waiting then, because it's not going to happen. I would never suggest anything of the sort. It's not nearly creative enough of a solution, for one thing.
"...that you've earned. I don't see a problem."
Just because you don't see a problem, doesn't mean that there isn't one.
So, say, a CEO who is hired to run a company and assumes no financial risk on their own for doing so has "earned" the right to 40x more salary than the people who actually make the products? Somehow that doesn't seem right. Do they work forty times harder? Forty times more? Neither is physically possible. Do they assume forty times as much risk? Having seen more than a few golden parachute deals, I think it's obvious that they don't.
"what was he willing to risk all of his time and money to run the business?"
Most business people are saavy enough to start their businesses with other people's money. See: Venture Capitalism.
"It sounds to me like he wants the same amount of profits as an owner, but none of the risks."
This is a gross misrepresentation of the author's position.
"If the engineer is under contract and using the resources, money, and lab of his employer to create this radical new process, he is getting paid a salary he agreed upon (which wasn't by force)."
He must agree to a salary somewhere if he wants to eat and have a place to live. This is not choice. It's not overt force either, but it does have something of coercion about it.
"If he is using all of his own equipment, under no contract, it can make him very rich."
Most people could not afford such equipment even if they are inclined to use it. They therefore have no choice but to work for someone else.
"I don't really see a problem with anything you are describing, except your sense of entitlement."
This is an ad hominem. I have not stated anywhere that I or anyone else are entitled to anything, nor would I ever.
"Do you actually think I believe there isn't anything new? I was merely pointing out that there are thousands of years of history and experience in the economic, finance, and politics department, which can show you what works and what doesn't (and if your idea is radically new or just a rehash of something old)."
This much is blatantly obvious. And?
"There are more important social issues to address than some guy that is whining about his life."
More ad hominem. Also the issues being addressed by the author are bigger than his own life. He states as much if you actually read it carefully.