That 50% isn't really non-necessary; it's only spending outside of food/housing/clothing. It includes transportation to work, health care, insurance, things like that.
So you don't think people should be compensated in line with their economic value? A few people have brought this up, but it doesn't make sense to me. Obviously you have to subtract the cost of technology and investment, and account for potentially increased supply of workers since fewer are needed. But why shouldn't other companies make higher offers to lure people away from its competitors, and why shouldn't that result in compensation closer to economic value that we see now?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/11 14:52 (UTC)So you don't think people should be compensated in line with their economic value? A few people have brought this up, but it doesn't make sense to me. Obviously you have to subtract the cost of technology and investment, and account for potentially increased supply of workers since fewer are needed. But why shouldn't other companies make higher offers to lure people away from its competitors, and why shouldn't that result in compensation closer to economic value that we see now?