...marginally more. Still nowhere near the actual value their labor brings in. We simply don't have a competitive enough employer market to provide the upward wage pressure that would be sufficient to pay people fairly.
I'd rather eat a bullet, thanks. I have dignity and I'd like to keep it.
> The fact that google/apple/amazon make 5-10x per employee is not proof that you're underpaid.
That's exactly what it means.
> The chef at French Laundry makes $$$$$$$, does that mean the apple farmer who supplied the apples for $ is underpaid?
The chef is paid for their labor. Shareholders contribute nothing to society.
The newer shareholders provided liquidity to the original shareholders. Their benefit to society was helping to incentivize the people who created the company (and all the jobs) by making them rich.
it's not about dignity, it's about history. That's why those FAANGs offered crazy salaries before tapering off some 5 years ago.
The last thing they wanted was for the true 10x'ers to become tomorrow's competition, or for others to work for such 10x'ers. Because if such an engineer could make a 10m/yr business vs being hired for 100k, many would take that business opportunity.
>Shareholders contribute nothing to society.
they contribute money, and that's all that matters. quality, long term profitability, and worker dignity be damned.
yeah, business is hard. FAANG paying a very cushy salary is relatively easier. The ambitious would still consider such a choice tho, and those are the ones they want to keep in their own company instead of as a future competitor. They literally paid off a competitive labor market.
In different terms, maybe you leaving costs the company $X. But if product engineer Joe Bob left first, maybe you leaving suddenly only costs the company $Y, where $X > $Y. Are you really worth $X?
