It's interesting to me that you bring up the profit that Microsoft made because I have not. There are things to talk about vis-a-vie Microsoft-the-company and why they were so profitable, but I was only talking about a particular Microsoft employee.

> Would you admit in this case that the founder earned a substantial fraction of the $500 billion?

Oh, would I admit it - huh? I do want to say that your account of this company is at odds with the history of Microsoft, which was famously profitable for ruthless business practices more than innovation.

This founder sounds like they have done well. Certainly, they should be the highest paid person at the company. However, consider how disconnected their actions are from their financial reward. Someone could run a nonprofit just as well, generate $500bn in benefit, and get just their salary. The fact that this person can capture as much value as they can has very little to do with the merit of their work.

What I am saying is that Gates did very well at his job, but the reason he was rewarded so highly for that high performance has more to do with choice and imbalanced value-capture than merit. Every Microsoft employee, down to the janitors, has an equal (if proportional) claim on the basis of "this company is successful so they should get value." If Gates deserves his money because the company was doing well and he contributed x% to the company, the same is true for everyone.

I am not arguing here that Microsoft should have had less total compensation to award to employees, I am arguing that Gates has captured too much of its total compensation. I think we, as members of the tech industry, have very immediate incentives (as well as well-founded philosophical ones) to point out this inefficient distribution and advocate for a better one.