Seems like a false equivalency to value investment assets at the same level as the money you need to survive.
Someone getting paid $100M but no "equity" isn't worse off than someone getting paid $100M of valuated equity (ignoring liquidity discount blah blah)
The premium equity achieves is largely as result of leverage – not value*. Employees might generate 100% of the revenue but get zero credit for the growth rate. In a book value sense both seem pretty even, but we don’t value growth companies at book… We value them with a DCF model (or a different model that takes into account future earnings). At T+0 you’re probably neck and neck, but as soon as you step into T+1, T+2, etc. the equity side will get credit for income it hasn’t earned yet while the wage earner is left the same (for the better or worse).
*related to my parent comment and the diminishing utility of money. Equity investors can afford to be choosey because they have wealth = aka options.
Not if it's as a result of natural capital gain, dividend on shareholdings, interest, inheritance or rent.
In those cases it does materialize independently of time.
Taxes are typically lower if you didn't labor for your money too. Probably because large political donations are not typically made by people who worked for their money.
