You’re saying when executives compete, their average salary goes higher, but when workers like us compete, our average salary gets smaller?
I said salaries in competition trend to market price points, and market price points for executives are set by externalities like "IPO windfalls" that don't exist for workers.
Wages aren't set but effort or value creation, but by marginal benefits of salary
There are other reasons that might inspire, elicit or compel one person's labor at someone else's direction; but if you accept the idea of "salary" as a concept, then it exists to create value, by definition.
If I make a fixed $100 from some labor, that number is an upper bound for how much I would ever pay, but doesnt determine how much I actually do pay. That is set by supply and demand for someone that can do the job. Maybe it is $1, maybe it is $99.
For jobs with variable productivity, pay is set by marginal benefit. If paying $1 more nets $10 more profit, you pay more. Repeat until you dont get more profit from raising wages.
Wages are set by the derivative of profit, not profit itself.
Uh... yes it is? Are "benefit" and "value" not synonyms here? I think you're confusing "value" with "profit" maybe? They may not be equal, but the denominator in "cost/benefit" is exactly what I'm talking about.
The pre-cost benefit of having any worker might be $100. If you can get a worker for $10, the marginal benefit or paying $20 is negative $10.