Quote Originally Posted by mojo
It's immoral for a company to pay some of its employees many thousands of times more than others, IMO.
I mean the problem here is you're wanting to regulate the freedom of individuals and entities to agree to an economic relationship. Such regulation already exists in the form of minimum wage and discrimination laws, but you want to go further.

And I'm not sure here if you're referring to people doing similar jobs or not. Take Liverpool FC. They pay Mohammed Salah a great deal more than they pay their tea lady, but both are employees of Liverpool FC. The tea lady is likely on £9.50 an hour, which Salah earns in a nanosecond [citation needed]. But of course, they pay Salah what they have agreed with his agent is his fair economic value to the club.

In an ideal world people get paid their economic value. Some people are worth more than others for a variety of reasons. Who decides what reasons are and are not "fair"? I would argue that decision should be left to the markets. If Salah isn't worth what he's paid, then Liverpool FC lose money. The markets punish their poor financial choices. If they make too many mistakes like this, they will no longer be a top football club. The ultimate punishment is bankruptcy and relegation. So they are incentivised to make good, "fair" decisions. And by "fair" I mean the true economic value of the person they are employing, "fair" in this context has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone else earns, or the general standard of living.

It's not about absolute wealth. It's about whether people have relatively as much as their neighbors.
I find this problematic, as it is basically envy. Poor for me is about necessity. If other people have things you would like, non-essential things that just make life better, that doesn't make you poor, but it should incentivise you to be wealthier.