One of the challenges of teamwork is deciding how to share the profits of joint enterprise. This is precisely why executive pay is so interesting. Why should the boss take most of the profit and leave the rest of the team to share out scraps among themselves?
Everybody knows the one about Adam Smith and the selfish baker who, like, wait for it . . . makes people pay before they eat his bread. Dirty money changes hands. I know, shocking.
The key to a happy workplace is understanding that work is hard because of Other People.
This is a post about executive pay, in which we agree that we're not sure exactly how much corporate executives are paid but we know that it's Far Too Much. In this post I show that the problem of income inequality is actually quite easy to fix, once the roots of the problem are carefully exposed and logically unraveled.
If you want to run your own taxi service but you're too poor to be able to afford an actual taxi, then you just get two beat up old bicycles, tie them together with ribbon or elastic bands (whatever you have available), attach a platform for your passengers to sit on, and you're good to go.
There is no consensus on the meaning of freedom and liberty. Many people think that liberty means freedom to follow their own path in life but other people view liberty as freedom to wield power over others. Those who view liberty this way, as a measure of power, are inordinately concerned with inequalities of wealth. They would regard freedom as meaningless if they are relatively poor, and powerless to boot. They are not content to get on with their own life, free to do as they please, while elsewhere there are rich people spending money and being most infuriating.
What's that? Children selling produce? In a food market? That's child labour! That's banned!
It is obvious why poor people would have a problem with rich people, but today we will consider why middle class people should also have a problem with rich people. Of course it's about schools, and especially rich people being able to afford better schools (or better homes near better schools) than middle class people. I know, shocking.
Rose Wilder Lane is surprising to the modern reader. She doesn't fit neatly into either of the opposing camps that we are by now accustomed to in the modern world: one comprising rich and greedy people who are utterly selfish and care nothing for the troubles of the poor; and the other comprising the righteous and the worthy who spend all their time wringing their hands in despair and bemoaning the excesses of capitalism.
Wow, that sounds chaotic. Anything so chaotic and untidy as capitalism is surely begging for a system of rules to restore order.