That's just basic supply and demand and it's not unfair. Jobs where demand exceeds supply are paid more and more until people decide to train/retrain for that job.
The unfair part is that the 250k income of the software engineer is increasing demand for housing until it's too expensive for the cleaner although the demand and therefore price are high enough to warrant more housing it's not getting build because of zoning laws.
That's just basic supply and demand and it's not unfair. Jobs where demand exceeds supply are paid more and more until people decide to train/retrain for that job.
You say that's fair, but someone else could say it is unfair. The supply/demand equation you describe suggests how the salaries get decided upon, but that's not the same thing as fair. That's the system we have, but that doesn't make it automatically fair.
Of course it is supply and demand, but they are creating these conglomerates that inefficiently aggregate wealth into a few. All of them are part of the problem. Why are only the top 1% ones the problem? Those are the ones who created the system of unfair enrichment, but share unfair gains to a few to keep the machine working.
I mean, why should someone jump into the 1% simply for being engineer #2? Those gains are unfair, and should be taxed 100% to pay for healthcare for all.
Why are only the top 1% ones the problem? Those are the ones who created the system of unfair enrichment
No, they aren't. The system is older than any person alive today. It's older than people. It's a natural law of the universe. It's game theory and natural selection, ultimately, that plays the fundamental role.
The unfair part is that the 250k income of the software engineer is increasing demand for housing until it's too expensive for the cleaner although the demand and therefore price are high enough to warrant more housing it's not getting build because of zoning laws.