Everyone agrees that salaries for really high earners are way beyond what is necessary/reasonable. Ok, not everyone, but fuck those guys.
Everyone also agrees (when they think about it) that beyond a certain point it’s not actually the spending power that that’s important - it’s the expression of their value that matters. For example, when Messi demands a reported figure of $667,000 per week (according to Forbes) it’s not because he wants or needs the extra cash for himself/family/successive generations it’s to show that he’s the very best at what he does. When another player challenges for his status they have to earn more than he does, it’s a never-ending spiral.
None of this would be a problem if money wasn’t a finite resource - but in reality every extra dollar he earns is a dollar that doesn’t get spent on something else more worthwhile. And we then have to rely on any empathy or philanthropic element to the high-earner’s character for any trickle down to occur.
Footballers are obviously just one of the most visible manifestation of the problem - not the problem themselves. CEOs, Tech wankers and other celebrities also want to be recognised as the highest paid in their fields for the same reasons.
Can we come up with another way of valuing people (beyond a certain level of remuneration) that doesn’t further increase inequality and the gap between the highest and lowest earners?
The answer is obviously yes - your task is to define how we’re going to do it.
balonz says you’re not up to it, that it’s a waste of time and that you should let this thread die a sorry death with a handful of sarcastic responses. But we’ll see…