[Domenic_S]

The unspoken assumption behind this line of thinking is "if an entity/person can afford to pay more, the entity/person on the other side of the deal deserves more". This reasoning is applied to arguments about other things as well, such as taxes.

The problems with it become apparent when you realize that the standard isn't applied everywhere and is really impossible to evaluate fairly, so the conclusions are derived from personal ethics and concepts of "fairness" instead.

As an example, "they can afford it" is often used as an argument in favor of higher taxes on "the wealthy" (whatever that means), yet nobody says "you can afford to pay starbucks more for your coffee". You could have certainly afforded to pay more for your car or house or macbook, so why didn't you if "you can afford it" is the bar? Likewise many SV tech workers could "afford" to take pay cuts, but nobody's arguing that - why not, if "you can afford it" is the measure?

[Apocryphon]

There's the asymmetry at play; with their immense wealth, these corporations can more easily pay employees more and have less effect on their bottom line- though perhaps simple math will prove this point wrong- than individual workers choosing to take pay cuts. But while this is a good discussion, I don't see how any of this differentiates being greedy from being a rational actor or homo economicus.

[Domenic_S]

It's rational in the sense that you'd seek to maximize your comp. But the reasoning of "they can afford it, therefore I should get more" is not a rational argument because (1) it makes enormous and unstated assumptions about what a company can/will/should do with its money and (2) the conclusion doesn't logically flow from the premise. It's underpants gnome reasoning, and I have yet to see a compelling argument that fills in the "???" step.

[Apocryphon]

But for the individual, it is rational to try to maximize their own share of the profit, is it not? And since we're talking about immensely wealthy corporations, some of which have nice margins and billions of dollars of cash in reserve, it's a bit of an intuitive step. To go back to your previous post, deserve's got nothing to do with it. The rational individual would seek to optimize their share, even if it involves questioning accepted wisdom.

[Domenic_S]

> But for the individual, it is rational to try to maximize their own share of the profit, is it not?

Depends on how you measure the profit. "Profit per employee" is an abstract measurement and for most people has little bearing to what they themselves do daily. Just because a company's profit per employee happens to be $x doesn't mean you personally generated $x - you could have generated a lot more, or perhaps been a net cost instead (projects fail and get cancelled all the time). You could make an argument that if you build a wildly successful feature you should get a big share of the profit, but only if you take a pay cut when things go poorly. Who wants that? This already happens to an extent in big companies btw, people on successful projects get promoted and more cash & stock so in a way they are sharing in the success.

> And since we're talking about immensely wealthy corporations, some of which have nice margins and billions of dollars of cash in reserve, it's a bit of an intuitive step.

This is just another way of saying "they can afford it", which I discussed previously.