It's a question of how much it costs to hire a person. If there are only a tiny number of people who can do X, then companies are effectively bidding for them. If everyone can do it then there's no incentive to pay high amounts.
Yes. But more specifically, it's a question of how many people there are who will do X for Y money. So for instance, I doubt Ben & Jerry's would have had such trouble with their income-multiplier policy if they'd been based in Japan, where from what I can gather, nobody expects to be paid a thousand times as much as their employees. Or towards the other end of the scale, it's not as if there's a mad surplus of qualified nurses, but they all expect to be paid quite badly, so they are.
Japan does have low income inequality - it seems to be ingrained into their culture. In fact, checking Wikipedia they have the lowest income inequality in the world. How they manage that, I don't know. Japan's culture is very different to most other countries though, and I'm not sure I'd want to live somewhere more like that.
The problem nurses have is that there is no market for them - the NHS has centralised pay, so it doesn't vary from place to place (which causes all sorts of other problems, as costs of living vary dramatically across the country). Of course nurses aren't paid terribly (any kind of specialist, midwife, health visitor, etc. is on at least £30k) - but you can't really move from one place to another to do the same job for more pay.
Yes, there's a lot that we might be happier without in Japanese culture - but the point stands that pay is fairly clearly largely a cultural thing, not a pure economic thing. That is, it's allocated through the game of economics, but the parameters of that game are cultural as much as they're numerical.
And I'd like to see a culture of saying 'fuck you' to people who won't do their jobs unless they're paid hundreds of times - (or even just dozens) as much as other people. I think the knock-on effects on society of having some people being that rich are deeply negative, and even if we're not agreeing to tax them for 90% of their income or whatever, I don't think it's right at all to say 'their money, their business'... and that starts to seem like a no-brainer when the state ends up bailing out companies at least partly because they have been funnelling so much of their income into the hands of a few individuals.
I do, actually, agree with bits of this. I do wonder if we only get some people making that much money in certain industries, and that most of those industries are bad things to have so much of
I suspect that we'd need much more controls over a larger area to make it work - and it would have more of an impact than people would like.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
The problem nurses have is that there is no market for them - the NHS has centralised pay, so it doesn't vary from place to place (which causes all sorts of other problems, as costs of living vary dramatically across the country). Of course nurses aren't paid terribly (any kind of specialist, midwife, health visitor, etc. is on at least £30k) - but you can't really move from one place to another to do the same job for more pay.
no subject
And I'd like to see a culture of saying 'fuck you' to people who won't do their jobs unless they're paid hundreds of times - (or even just dozens) as much as other people. I think the knock-on effects on society of having some people being that rich are deeply negative, and even if we're not agreeing to tax them for 90% of their income or whatever, I don't think it's right at all to say 'their money, their business'... and that starts to seem like a no-brainer when the state ends up bailing out companies at least partly because they have been funnelling so much of their income into the hands of a few individuals.
no subject
I suspect that we'd need much more controls over a larger area to make it work - and it would have more of an impact than people would like.
no subject