I totally agree with your diagnosis, but I don’t see why it’s considered to be a problem. Why shouldn’t people be free to trade off salary against other desirable traits in a job? Even at the extremes?
Lacking that, power dynamics are such that workers need protections enshrined in legislation. If salaries are a race-to-the-bottom, nobody benefits except the ones doing the hiring. You may have a "job," but the market salary average would be depressed while the companies enjoy a large talent pool of replaceable workers.
If I didn't know history too well, I likely wouldn't hold this position. But it's clear as day if you crack open a history book.
The first example to jump out in my mind is gov't contractors, which isn't a direct analogue to workers but the mentality of undercutting your competition to get ahead is basic human nature IMO.
Two candidates vying for the same job wouldn't consciously sabotage each other (let's assume). But if they both give a salary quote, why wouldn't the lower-priced candidate be a more appealing hire? With no protections, it would come down to whoever is willing (or able) to cut more pieces of their body off to win the job.
And that behavior is not conducive to a well-functioning economy that supports a large and contented middle class, which is the preferred economic status of all state actors.
This is why I think it's become common practice for tech companies to profit share. We take it for granted now, but it's not common...especially for artists.
https://www.theverge.com/23789935/sega-union-cwa-unionizatio...
https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-activision-bl...
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/13/marvel-vfx-artists-unanimous...
https://iatse.net/avatar-vfx-artists-file-for-union-election...
It also must be said that during the Hollywood strikes last year, it was the Writer's Guild that drove the talks and were the ones to get the studios to capitulate. And I find writing to be the building block of creativity and passion for a lot of industries. Every story starts somewhere, these days usually on a writer's PC.
That the WGA is demonstrably one of the strongest unions in America makes me very happy, but a little forelorn other unions aren't nearly as strong. IATSE isn't regarded nearly as respectfully in Hollywood, for instance.
if you wanted a cathedral or a city hall built they held all the leverage
Your theory can also be countered with another theory: people making a certain amount of money will simply leave the country, leaving you with less tax revenue than the current system.
Also, how does one tax unrealized stock market gains (which is what most wealthy people's wealth are)? I have not seen that policy anywhere and I imagine it would be very difficult to implement.
For example, owning land that is empty or an empty building for years just so it appreciates deprives the community. Tax the shit out of it so it forces the owner to use it productively or sell it so someone else can figure out how to use it productively.
Driving giant pickup trucks for no productive reason also uses up a societal resource, and increases societal risks, so I would not mind seeing extra taxes on those compared to more reasonable methods of transport, and a case could be easily made that all personal vehicles should be taxed much higher to incentivize public transit construction and use.
Society is not losing out much if you don’t use your ski boots since college, but maybe society does benefit if you consume less throwaway things, so a generally increased tax on consumption, perhaps based on mass and distance (since more mass moved further distances takes more energy to move) might work. Easiest way to do this is simply 10x tax on fossil fuels, it will flow down to everything.
Tax things you don’t want. Taxing the result of productive work (income) is disincentivizing something we do want. We want people working hard and striving to do the difficult tasks that are in short supply of expertise (and higher income).
Do you understand that for many people in the world, the car you or at least people in your peer group might drive would be the equivalent of a giant pickup truck to them? Who decides what a reasonable method of transportation is? For example, the bus system is terrible where I live. Am I allowed to have a giant pickup truck under your scheme or should that be taxed the same as if I had a better mass transit system near me? How would you monitor use of my giant pickup truck to be sure I was using it practically in a way that meets your requirements for proper pickup truck usage?
> Do you understand that for many people in the world, the car you or at least people in your peer group might drive would be the equivalent of a giant pickup truck to them?
Yes, I am aware these schemes would require reducing consumption for quite a few people.
> Who decides what a reasonable method of transportation is?
Society? But it has to be planned with long term consequences in mind. Are we prioritizing pedestrians over individual car owners and detached single family home owners or not, because the two are wholly incompatible.
> For example, the bus system is terrible where I live. Am I allowed to have a giant pickup truck under your scheme or should that be taxed the same as if I had a better mass transit system near me?
You are allowed to have whatever you want, just like you can have a $10M home right now, but society does not need to give you the streets and parking lots to use the giant pickup truck.
The mass transit system will come about eventually, but probably will take decades of rezoning. I think voters making this kind of sacrifice is realistic at all, people’s priority at the polls is which politician will allow them to consume as much as possible.
> How would you monitor use of my giant pickup truck to be sure I was using it practically in a way that meets your requirements for proper pickup truck usage?
Again, high fossil fuel prices take care of this, especially at marginal tax rates. Use a little fuel? Less tax. Use more fuel? Higher taxes. At some tax rate, it will no longer make sense for 90% of people to use a pickup truck if they don’t need it.
The purpose of the tax is to dissuade frivolous use that harms society at large. If the use is valuable enough, it will be reflected in the prices of the services it helps provide.
The taxes you are proposing are literally designed to inhibit people from buying the vehicles they want.
Yes, the tax is supposed to dissuade people, but obviously if you are paying $5 per mile in tax to use the pickup truck, but earn $20 per mile profit from the work accomplished using it, people will still be able to buy and use the truck for a productive purpose.
Could you explain the reasoning by which the policy you propose would be expected to produce these outcomes?
People who get in these industries often want to get paid for what they already do for fun, being doodling or coding small games. Or maybe they see the big projects like a popular anime or a game they loved and want to be part of it. But in many cases, what they only get is a repetitive, not very creative, and high pressure job, with all the fun sucked out of it. Which would be fine if the pay was worth it, but it isn't, and the prospects are not great either, because the really interesting positions are few compared to the grunt work.
Problem is that newcomers don't know that, or maybe hope they are special, and companies really play on that, schools too. What happens is that a few years later you get a bunch of guys that are completely drawn out, hopefully they find a better job elsewhere, to be replaced by a new batch of kids with a soon to be broken dream. Some are luckier and get the job they really wanted (it probably won't be you), and others are really unlucky because their skillset doesn't translate well to other industries and end up with burn out, depression and poverty.