Right, and even if we assume Lebron accomplished his entire basketball career by himself and that his salary is 100% “earned”, his salary didn’t net him a billion dollars.

you’re only strengthening the argument that people deserve asymmetric compensation. LeBron and the NBA have a symbiotic relationship where both of them make more money because they exist. And I would guess the NBA made a lot more money than LeBron.

Are we not discussing this in the context of this parent message?

> The actual opposing argument is that it's impossible to create a billion dollar enterprise without a group effort, and for one person to end up with a billion dollars necessarily means that they made decisions within that enterprise that resulted in a lopsided allocation of resources at the end.

--

> And I would guess the NBA made a lot more money than LeBron.

And yes, in this case I believe the NBA is extracting asymmetrically, from Lebron and others.

Also the idea that playing on a basketball team is a good counter to the argument that everyone is on a team seems pretty odd for obvious reasons.

Are you sure the root of your concern isn’t that people differ in ability and value?

Can you quickly break down which players on the team are fairly compensated and which are oppressed by LeBron?

I'm the original poster in this sub-thread, and I didn't make any of the points you seem to have ascribed to me.

Once again, the publisher gave her something like 5-10% of sales and kept 90% to cover those costs and she is still a billionaire!!! So is your real beef with the publisher?

Indeed. And once the publishers have paid their fair share, JKR also will, and she won't be a billionaire anymore.