Temper this with the understanding that many workers don't have a good view of what their boss actually does and just assume that their boss puts in a third of the effort, when in fact he might put in much much more and the situation may also be difficult to fathom. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3156692

Seeing your boss do it teaches you to become the boss.

Seeing your neighbor do it teaches you to switch jobs and work 1/3 as hard.

The reason this doesn't work is the same incentives people are discussing. If there are high-paying easy jobs, people will demand them and theoretically the wages will fall until demand for the job tapers off.

All of this is a bit unfair though, because "having a social safety net where poor people can have vacations and a happy life" is a lot different than the myopic, mean-spirited conservative reply of "but my neighbor is a lazy jerk who makes more than me!"

Do most bosses make 10x the pay? I think that's highly unlikely. Maybe you meant CEO?

I'm 90% sure that my boss makes about 1.2x what I make.

Of course they do. They’re called hobbies.

But do they take massive risks without potential massive reward? A lot wouldn’t.

Unless they’re under the rule of a dictator and their life is threatened. That’s an incentive.

Most people who can take "massive risks" end up, at worst, in the same situation as the average American if they fail. The average American, on the other hand, can't take those risks at all because they could end up homeless or with mountains of medical debt. Reducing how far you can fall would allow for more risks to be taken.

Wouldn't? Or can't given the lack of safety nets?

If the worst-case scenario is starting over perhaps the risk isn't so "massive." But when the worst-case scenario is starving then it's certainly a massive risk.