>Norway actually dominates the US in GDP per labor hour
That's mostly due to fossil fuel reserves rather than the people actually being more productive.
>They have an extremely productive manufacturing sector, but a less productive service sector, and the service sector drags down the average.
That raises the obvious question: why are their service sectors so much less productive, so much so that their overall productivity is lower than the US?
>The main thing to consider is this: what's the point of diminishing returns? Are we missing out on eve greater GDP per labor hour because CEOs are only making ~250x the average worker salary? Could we 10x our GDP per labor hour if we paid them 2500x? Or is it possible that CEOs would work just as effectively at "only" 30x average worker salary?
By what mechanism do you think that cutting CEO pay will 10x GDP per labor hour? As other commenter shave mentioned in this thread, CEO compensation is a drop in the bucket compared to rank and file compensation. Getting them to work for free will at best raise the rank and file compensation by a few percentage points.
> That's mostly due to fossil fuel reserves rather than the people actually being more productive.
If fossil fuel reserves determined productivity, Venezuela should have some of the most productive workers in the world. I invite you to compare GDP per hour worked to oil reserves per capita and point out the correlation. Ireland actually also dominates the US in GPD per hour worked, and they're down around 87th in the world for oil reserves.
> That raises the obvious question: why are their service sectors so much less productive, so much so that their overall productivity is lower than the US?
An even better question might be: Why does Japan outrank the US in standard of living even though they have markedly lower productivity? Seems like US workers are getting a terrible deal.
> By what mechanism do you think that cutting CEO pay will 10x GDP per labor hour?
I never said it would, I'm saying that we're well beyond the point of diminishing returns in CEO pay.
Beyond a certain level, wealth isn't about being able to meet one's needs and it becomes a lever of power. This is well evidenced by the fact that the wishes of the voters have almost no correlation with policy outcomes in the US, but the wishes of the upper class are strongly correlated. This goes back to my earlier point, the purpose of stratospheric CEO pay isn't about compensation for value delivered, but rather a way for a class of people to entrench their dominance through an unchecked focus on their own interests.
That's mostly due to fossil fuel reserves rather than the people actually being more productive.
>They have an extremely productive manufacturing sector, but a less productive service sector, and the service sector drags down the average.
That raises the obvious question: why are their service sectors so much less productive, so much so that their overall productivity is lower than the US?
>The main thing to consider is this: what's the point of diminishing returns? Are we missing out on eve greater GDP per labor hour because CEOs are only making ~250x the average worker salary? Could we 10x our GDP per labor hour if we paid them 2500x? Or is it possible that CEOs would work just as effectively at "only" 30x average worker salary?
By what mechanism do you think that cutting CEO pay will 10x GDP per labor hour? As other commenter shave mentioned in this thread, CEO compensation is a drop in the bucket compared to rank and file compensation. Getting them to work for free will at best raise the rank and file compensation by a few percentage points.