Most of these thoughts are not my own but rather a collection from others who have a greater depth of knowledge of this subject. This is simply a short and OVERLY incomplete recap through the eyes of an engineer.
I've come to learn a main concern in our economic structure resides in the ineffectiveness of its wealth distribution. Spoils of wealth generation are vastly concentrated in the hands of a few while everyone else stacks up at zero. Is this good? Is this bad? What do we do about this? I'd like to address a few ideas I consider to be general misconceptions regarding this distribution inefficiency. I hope to lay out some of my confusion regarding the matter. If I am illogical in any way, please inform me by submitting an issue. Consider the additional topics without commentary further below.
My intention is not to claim a higher interest in capitalism or socialism, and certainly not to be political. In fact, after considering these thoughts, it could seem as though I favor socialism more than those who despise capitalism and that I favor capitalism more than those who despise socialism. I hope to avoid this.
We have to distinguish between different methods of wealth accumulation: quantity of income and quantity of project ownership.
We also have to distinguish between different types of income: salary and one-off gains.
Income:
The methods by which salaries within project structures are quantified are debatable. Wealth differentials between few executives and many workers tend to be high and result in vast differences in access to opportunity. I see the meaning of a salary for a role carried in a project is to ensure longevity of participation of a worker in the project. Worker overturn is not beneficial for project efficiency considering investment in training and cohesiveness of morale. It is also burdensome for workers to endure uncertainty in financial stability and further livelihood shock.
A salary can be considered too low if, of course, basic needs of living are not met, but also if access to spending opportunities are diminished. Diminished opportunities, though indeterminate, can have drastic effects on workers' home lives and relative cultures. I would argue diminished opportunities for workers also have an effect on the performance of the project from which a salary is earned. Project performance is dependent on worker performance which is significantly influenced by salary waged. A general principle here is to consider a single salary is to be sufficient for the livelihood of a worker, just as a single worker per project role is sufficient for a project to depend. Dependency on multiple salaries is moot if we're discussing effectiveness of worker to project relations. Multiple salaried projects per worker can only diminish worker performance if we're quantifying performance ability relative to time available to perform.
Just as a salary can be considered too low, there are reasons to consider why a salary can be too high. As a general principle, we must consider the purpose of money earned, which is to be spent. If a salary is not spent, objectively speaking, it is wasted. I do not say this to imply all excess money unspent should not be waged, but generally speaking, ineffectiveness at spending money creates further economic issues. A consideration to determine salary waged should be relative to creativeness and effectiveness of spending money. Not every worker is capable of spending money to generate worthwhile investment. Not every worker spends money on the same quality or quantity of products to ensure savings capacity and functionality. Not every worker is able to distinguish good versus bad expenditure. Not every wage earner evaluates market consumerism equally. Though impossible, a salary can be considered too high at the point at which the salary earner is incapable of allocating funds to further means that benefit themselves or a project. I would be careful with the term 'benefit' due to a likely misinterpretation for lavishness or excess rather than utility. Though, how do we measure lavishness without giving due consideration to market services available to provide such excessive goods or services? Are these not projects in and of themselves? Aside from these caveats of excess wealth, it can be understood why salaried wages can be too high for certain types of market consumers.
One-off gains are another form of income; an instance where something a person owns is valued by another and some trade is made at a value according to demand. Due to the nature of one-off gains, ineffectiveness of spending the financial gain of this type of income is irrelevant, unlike a worker salary, considering its uninvolved ties to any sort of fund allocation within a project. Fund allocation of projects are meant to consider not only longevity of worker stamina, but longevity of project lifetime and capacity to develop further. One-off gains are unrelated to project funds since they are outside the domain of the projects themselves. Those who demand a product of another who are willing to pay acquisition typically do so for the sake of alleviating strain on project funding. So a one-off gain made by one is the project funds stress reliever of another. My best estimation regarding what is to be considered too high a gain is however in-demand a product is for such one-off occurrence to happen. There is no amount too high.
Project ownership:
My greatest confusion with the general animosity toward billionaires regards source of valuation. Typically they're those whose net valuation of a project ownership is valued in the billion dollar range. This has nothing to do with income, in fact, billionaires do not have access to this wealth beyond controlling where the valuation is allocated within the valued project. There is an obvious caveat: corruption among executives finding nefarious ways of pocketing project funds. But for the purpose of this idea, bad actors are a secondary issue. Add: Issues of billionaires leading companies with negative externalities, outsourcing labor, cost-cutting measures, etc.
Without much explanation yet: I have more of a problem with the CEO of a company making millions in salary than I do with the wealth of a billionaire of which is typically regulated by voluntary public allocation. When I hear someone saying Elon Musk can do without much of his wealth, what I really hear is, "the public shouldn't be trusted to fund (value) this person's projects".
Additional topics:
Good-faith actors:
Please consider my other thoughts.