30 years engineering experience from Intel and Lockheed to small family tech start ups you never heard of.
Far from armchair.
If you are arguing risk reward has not fueled computers and the rest then you are just ignorant or one of those communist hangers on. Look at the early competi0n in the auto industry. The competition between Boeing and Mcdonnell-Douglas is legendary.
What spurred IBM to create its PC was the Apple II gaming business applications. Competition which the Soviet system lacked. Competition which to a degree China has enabled with success.
Placing top level wage limits is tinkering with a complex system that evolved over 200 years.
The Soviet system stigled initiative and competition. Argue otherwise? Go ahead, make my day...
That's exactly what I said. You regurgitate stupidly. My bone fides kick yours' ass anyway, but even if they didn't, your bumper sticker economics are poison from the 80s. I didn't say that the only option was fucking communism. Incentivizing creativity is clearly the point of the market. But if we let people drink from the magic money river, we also have to make them stop eventually. It's still an incentive even at 50% tax rates. I have rock solid evidence of that too. But it also doesn't matter. When r>g, you have a dysfunctional market in need of regulation and much higher progressive taxes.
Without chnges moving forward I do mot think the system is sutainable ,ainly for reasons not connected to top level compensation.
Automation in many forms has reduced the need for skilled labor that used to provide living wages.
Top level compensation and corporate comesation are two differnt things.
The fact a CEO makes a lot more than the lowest worker really does not have an effect on overall wages. It mostly looks bad. Some may be overpaid. What you do not see is the level of responsibility and time demand of a CEO. Lee Aokoka saved Chrysler People at that level eat, drink, and breath work 24/7 with no letup.
Corporate profit and taxes s are another matter. R&D takes money. Profits are invested, it can not sit still as a pile of cash, inflation eats away at it. If you have a retirement plan it is growing with overall corporate profits. So as I said the economy is a dynamic living thing highly complex. Simply creating a wage ratio limit can and likely would have long term consequences.]]Looking at it like n engineer, the sytem of competion seelsmto lower opring costs. This icludes reducing the need for skolled labor and reducing labor needs, 'head count'.
Unrestrained population growth in a system that reduces need for labor is unworkable in the long term. IMOin the long term the question is about avoiding catastrophic collapse.
The other side is the expectation of continuous growth in wages and earning power. The economy does not need a lot of labor as it once did to produce necessities. The economy is based on consumption of unnecessary goods. In the 60s a middle class house might be 1000ft^2. Much more is expected today.
In terms of buying power the number of hours an average worked needed to work to buy a PC in the 80s is an order of magnitude less today.
The two economic issues today are health care and housing costs. That is what is driving wage issues. Back in the 80's in Hartford Ct I drove a cab and could afford a nice apartment.