$1.5 billion in estimated revenue: A look at the Massachusetts 'millionaire's tax' first year taxing the rich

return2ozma@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 667 points –
$1.5 billion in estimated revenue: A look at the Mass. 'millionaire's tax' first year
wbur.org
104

You are viewing a single comment

Let us assume average CEO-to-worker pay ratio 70-to-1

The CEO does lots of work managing the company.

Do they work 70 times harder than their workers?

I'm not sure. How do you qualify 70 times harder?

Some arguments suggest that their stewardship allows that organization to ultimately achieve its goals and earn its profits, which could be significant.

How would you feel if you and a co-worker both closed deals, only you worked much harder and closed a deal that earned the company twice as much money? Should you both be compensated the same?

Let's stay instead you were promoted to managing the previous group of coworkers. Now your scope of responsibility increases, stress and headaches, and management duties has increased. You are also now earning the company more money because you're good at it. Should your pay be tied to how much you're earning the company? Could you now make double what your subordinates make? More?

In another scenario, you are the most senior manager of an organization. Some of your senior individuals are extremely talented, tenured, and earn the company great deals of revenue because of their skills, people generally like working for them. How easily could those people be replaced, without affecting the organization's success? How long would it take you to replace them? Would the business suffer in the mean time? Could those individuals be easily poached by another organization who pays them more? How much more? What is the overall market price for that individual's skill set? How much education and talent versus replaceability do they have? Ultimately what are they worth?

I’m not sure. How do you qualify 70 times harder?

70 times the amount of skill or 70 times the amount of experience or 70 times the amount of physical exertion. Something.

But that's not how they are paid. Instead, they are paid a market rate. Just like me. And the market doesn't care how hard you work.

How would you feel if you and a co-worker both closed deals, only you worked much harder and closed a deal that earned the company twice as much money? Should you both be compensated the same?

Clearly not, but because I am paid an hourly wage I get the same amount of compensation no matter how hard I work.

Should your pay be tied to how much you’re earning the company?

Maybe, or maybe just tied to the value of my labor.

That's not what happens. Instead I am paid a market rate i.e. they pay me as little as they can without causing me to find a different job. They do this to create profits, because all profit is literally just the revenue that's left over after expenses. I am one of those expenses, ergo-

Ultimately what are they worth?

The market says they are worth 70 times as much as I am.

They are not.

I find the reality of the 'market rate' frustrating.

I'm extremely excited about cybernetic economic planning as AI and quantum computing become a reality.

Central planners couldn't make a centrally planned economy work with traditional paper book keeping, and even with computers and internet it would be extremely difficult and require an army of bureaucrats so huge it would strain the entire economy. When that process can be automated, with a market AI to handle pricing and supply and production and everything, then we can finally abolish the market.

I assume you're talking about an automated socialist style economy?

I thought the USSR or a few other countries tried that in the last 40 or 50 years as computer networking became possible.

Edit: Quick web search listed USSR, Chile, China.

Yes it's been tried before, but computing power has advanced so far beyond the 20th century when it was attempted last. We can do it.

Do you think the previous failures were due to a lack of computing power?

From what I've read, it seemed more like corruption and politics. Doesn't matter if you had the most powerful computer ever in that case right?

The problem requires a vast army of bureaucrats to run the system, which is where the corruption comes from. Every additional human component of the system adds another layer vulnerability to bad actors. I think if they were automated away and rendered unnecessary, the central planning AI could run the economy with direct input from the masses. No need for bureaucrats.