Why would you continue to work hard if the state is going to take "part of it away from you"?
Because there's still room for growth. Putting an limit on it does not allow for growth.
I get that caps
taxes, but that's also the state taking "part of it away from you", and it's not stopping you from doing your best at what you're doing.
So? I'm not arguing against taxes, I'm arguing against interfering in private compensation contracts. There's a big difference. On one hand, you are taxing my income but not limiting it, on the other you are limiting it without potential for growth.
The same as the way CEOs of the past kept working hard even though the state took 80% of their income away. Bottom line: because it would still pay a whole lot more than jobs you need less ambition for, and probably also just because you take pride and satisfaction out of achievement. The same motivations that have driven ambitious people to success for decades.
You keep bringing up examples that have nothing at all to do with what I was talking about nimh. Taxing, even at ridiculous rates, does not interfere with the right of two private citizens to make a compensation agreement. It doesn't put a limit on anyone's earnings.
It's just not the same thing in any fundamental way except that it's motivated by the same kind of classism. That doesn't make it the same beast, it just means they both tend to have the same type of owner.
The idea that after the top-of-the-top wages have ballooned for a decade or two into a veritable multiple of what they used to be, capping some of that amount now will suddenly take away their working drive seems just silly.
No it isn't. And bringing up historic "examples" that contain no such cap doesn't make your case any stronger.
Didnt they work just as hard when those top-of-the-top wages had not ballooned to current levels yet?
There was no cap, they had the sky to shoot for. So why are you trying to compare no cap to no cap while arguing for a cap? That's just plain stupid.
Because it ignores the basic concept of value. Value is what people are willing to pay, not what you decide should be the most they should pay.
And how are the current CEO rewards not arbitrary?
There's been a veritable explosion of CEO pay and bonuses etc this past decade or two. Which has stood in no relation whatsoever to actual improvement of their businesses' performance. How is that any less arbitrary?
Because their companies were free to try to pay them as little as minimum wage if they wanted to or as high as they wanted to and that's where they put their value at.
You can argue that they have it wrong, and in most cases I'd agree but you've not even tried to make the case that you should be able to decide for them what it should be.
Michael Jordan earns, what, ten, twenty, thirty times as much, in real income, as his predecessors a generation ago. How has that got anything to do with questions or criteria of worth, or what he deserves, or hard work? Does he work ten times as much as the top sportsmen twenty years ago?
He has more measurable value to the business than anyone has ever had in basketball . He increased the whole businesses' revenue. Everyone in the NBA after Jordan is making a bit more money partly because of him. When he says "I'm back" the stock for the companies who pay to endorse him rises.
Sure you can decry the disputability of any limits set by government. But you can't pretend that the naturally centrifugal forces of the market economy result in wages that are any less arbitrary.
Nonsense. You need to study fundamental economics, in particular the theory of subjective value
(which I'd compare to the theory of evolution in acceptance rate among modern economists).
Water is more intrinsically useful than diamonds, but there is a clear difference in exchange value for a reason. Here is Adam Smith on the paradox:
"The one may be called 'value in use ;' the other, 'value in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value in use. The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it."
Salaries are prices, and prices are driven by exchange value. The people exchanging are in a better position to access value than you are from the sidelines when you say it's too much.
So how is limiting that escalating disparity a question of taking away what the guy is "worth" and just "deserves"?
By doing exactly that. You decide what other people are worth without participating in the exchange arbitrarily. They "deserve" the exchange value that others are willing to pay.
You keep harping on taxation, but that has nothing at all to do with what I have been talking about
. Taxing someone exorbitantly does not put an arbitrary value on their labor, it just takes an arbitrary value out of their income. Individuals are still free to determine their own exchange value.
Capping compensation is to arbitrarily declare exchange value and has nothing at all to do with taxation rates.
I'm not going into all of this unless you at least assure me that it is about what I have been arguing.
And once again, to clarify:
I am arguing against limiting labor compensation
. If you want to argue with me about your insane taxation
preferences I'd be happy to do so, but I'm not going to let you use my arguments against the interference with private contracts, and the basic functions of determining exchange value as the argument for them.
If you want me to argue your taxation preferences
(which I consider to be fundamentally injust and bad enough in their own right) then at least allow me to formulate arguments against that
and stop pretending that arguments against imposing compensation limits
are the same thing.
They are not the same in any fundamental way except that both are ugly classism.
BTW, I asked you to provide your argument for
your position and you haven't offered a single one yet. What are your arguments for
imposing compensation caps in private contracts?