Not all "Inequalities" are bad. In terms of labor income inequality, some of the factors that lead to different incomes of workers are normal or even positive. For example, diligent workers should earn more than lazy workers, and smart people earn more than stupid people. There are also reasonable factors that affect the inequality of capital income. For example, it is wise and prudent for us to increase our savings in anticipation of the possible uncertainty of income or expenditure in the future. According to Aesop's fables, ants are busy storing food for the winter in summer, but cicadas sing and play every day. In winter, they have to starve. The top 10% of the income in a society often gathers the elite of the society. When we talk about income inequality, the "10%" are easily disgusted, because they believe that everything they do depends on personal struggle. But as far as income inequality is concerned, it is not the "10%" who really deserve to be worried. There are also strata in the stratum. Among the top 10% of income, we can distinguish "1% and" 9% ". "9%" people may feel that they have been able to eat at the same table with "1%" people. Only "1%" people know that their world is very different from that of "9%". From "9% to" 1% ", it is as difficult as a carp jumping over a dragon's gate. In the "9% of the" 10% ", the income mainly comes from wages. Only when it reaches a higher "1%" or even the highest "0.5%", the proportion of capital income exceeds that of labor income. In the "1%", the higher the income, the lower the proportion of real estate in wealth and the higher the proportion of financial assets. Financial assets are mainly stocks. The income from the stock mainly comes from the dividend of the stock, rather than the income after the stock appreciation (that is, the income from stock speculation). After the 1980s, a special phenomenon, first in the United States and then in other countries, was the emergence of a group of "star managers" with sky high annual salaries, who accounted for "1%". From the 1970s to the beginning of the 21st century, the proportion of the income of the "10%" group with the highest income in the United States in the national income increased by 15%, of which 3/4 went to the "1%" group. Why can these "super managers" take so much money? If we believe that, because of the technological revolution after the 1980s, only a few star entrepreneurs can be outstanding and conform to the trend. Therefore, they deserve so much money. Then, "super managers" should appear worldwide. But why do we see this change only in Britain and the United States and other countries? Observe the proportion of the highest income "1%" in national income, and the "super manager society" mainly appears in Anglo Saxon countries. In the 1970s, the income of the "1%" group with the highest income in the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia accounted for 6% - 8% of the national income. By 2010, this proportion had reached 20% in the United States, 14% - 15% in Britain and Canada, and 9% - 10% in Australia. In continental European countries and Japan, the proportion of the income of the highest "1%" in the national income has also increased, but the trend is much more moderate. Is it true that only the United States has the Internet? Is it only in the United States that there is a need for special entrepreneurial talent? If we agree that the sky high salary of "super managers" is due to their outstanding talents, how can we explain the huge gap between "1% and" 9%? "? The annual salary is "9%" between 100000 and 200000 euros, and the growth rate of income level is only slightly faster than the average level, while the annual salary is "1%" above 500000 euros, or even 1million euros, and the income level is greatly improved. If the income is determined by ability, from "9% to" 1% ", the income should increase gradually. Why is there a sudden leap forward? The members of the "9%" and "1%" classes have little difference in terms of education, professional skills or work experience. Why is there such a huge difference? Even if your boss is smarter than you, can he be five or even ten times smarter than you? In fact, we don't have to hide our ears. The reason why "super managers" get sky high annual salary is very simple: their annual salary is mostly decided by themselves. Most enterprises have compensation committees, and the members of the compensation committees are either friends of senior executives or "1%" as rich as them. Intentionally or unintentionally, they overestimate their abilities and demand higher compensation for senior executives. This can not just blame them for greed, but to realize that the system is flawed. Human nature can not stand the test. When executives have too much autonomy in determining their own salary, it will lead to the failure of corporate governance mechanism and the aggravation of income inequality in the whole society.

Not all "Inequalities" are bad. In terms of labor income inequality, some of the factors that lead to different incomes of workers are normal or even positive. For example, diligent workers should earn more than lazy workers, and smart people earn more than stupid people. There are also reasonable factors that affect the inequality of capital income. For example, it is wise and prudent for us to increase our savings in anticipation of the possible uncertainty of income or expenditure in the future. According to Aesop's fables, ants are busy storing food for the winter in summer, but cicadas sing and play every day. In winter, they have to starve. The top 10% of the income in a society often gathers the elite of the society. When we talk about income inequality, the "10%" are easily disgusted, because they believe that everything they do depends on personal struggle. But as far as income inequality is concerned, it is not the "10%" who really deserve to be worried. There are also strata in the stratum. Among the top 10% of income, we can distinguish "1% and" 9% ". "9%" people may feel that they have been able to eat at the same table with "1%" people. Only "1%" people know that their world is very different from that of "9%". From "9% to" 1% ", it is as difficult as a carp jumping over a dragon's gate. In the "9% of the" 10% ", the income mainly comes from wages. Only when it reaches a higher "1%" or even the highest "0.5%", the proportion of capital income exceeds that of labor income. In the "1%", the higher the income, the lower the proportion of real estate in wealth and the higher the proportion of financial assets. Financial assets are mainly stocks. The income from the stock mainly comes from the dividend of the stock, rather than the income after the stock appreciation (that is, the income from stock speculation). After the 1980s, a special phenomenon, first in the United States and then in other countries, was the emergence of a group of "star managers" with sky high annual salaries, who accounted for "1%". From the 1970s to the beginning of the 21st century, the proportion of the income of the "10%" group with the highest income in the United States in the national income increased by 15%, of which 3/4 went to the "1%" group. Why can these "super managers" take so much money? If we believe that, because of the technological revolution after the 1980s, only a few star entrepreneurs can be outstanding and conform to the trend. Therefore, they deserve so much money. Then, "super managers" should appear worldwide. But why do we see this change only in Britain and the United States and other countries? Observe the proportion of the highest income "1%" in national income, and the "super manager society" mainly appears in Anglo Saxon countries. In the 1970s, the income of the "1%" group with the highest income in the United States, Britain, Canada and Australia accounted for 6% - 8% of the national income. By 2010, this proportion had reached 20% in the United States, 14% - 15% in Britain and Canada, and 9% - 10% in Australia. In continental European countries and Japan, the proportion of the income of the highest "1%" in the national income has also increased, but the trend is much more moderate. Is it true that only the United States has the Internet? Is it only in the United States that there is a need for special entrepreneurial talent? If we agree that the sky high salary of "super managers" is due to their outstanding talents, how can we explain the huge gap between "1% and" 9%? "? The annual salary is "9%" between 100000 and 200000 euros, and the growth rate of income level is only slightly faster than the average level, while the annual salary is "1%" above 500000 euros, or even 1million euros, and the income level is greatly improved. If the income is determined by ability, from "9% to" 1% ", the income should increase gradually. Why is there a sudden leap forward? The members of the "9%" and "1%" classes have little difference in terms of education, professional skills or work experience. Why is there such a huge difference? Even if your boss is smarter than you, can he be five or even ten times smarter than you? In fact, we don't have to hide our ears. The reason why "super managers" get sky high annual salary is very simple: their annual salary is mostly decided by themselves. Most enterprises have compensation committees, and the members of the compensation committees are either friends of senior executives or "1%" as rich as them. Intentionally or unintentionally, they overestimate their abilities and demand higher compensation for senior executives. This can not just blame them for greed, but to realize that the system is flawed. Human nature can not stand the test. When executives have too much autonomy in determining their own salary, it will lead to the failure of corporate governance mechanism and the aggravation of income inequality in the whole society.