But, I think you'd use the same government that caused the problem in the first place. Socialism may change the mechanism slightly but not the people.
Well, ultimately, it'll be up to the people to decide. If the millennials and generation z are moving more towards socialism, then "the people" may be of a different mold in the next generation or two. It's not just political or generational changes either, but also demographic and cultural changes. This doesn't have anything to do with socialism or capitalism, but more just a matter of the people themselves in a state of transition.
Sometimes, change doesn't always come easily, and this seems to be a root cause of much internal dissension of late. I think the key thing is to have a political and economic system which is flexible and adaptable enough to be able to adjust to the changes which are happening both within America and around the world.
They only get what they can get other people to agree to give them. Why these other people agree?
The Art of the Deal.
I make what I make now because I was able to get someone else to agree to pay me this much.
Actually I did research and asked for the average being made for my job.
Why these CEOs get offered so much? IDK, something not within the realm of my understanding.
I understand the basic Capitalism 101 answer. There are many answers one could give to that question, but ultimately, it as you say, someone agreed to pay that much. But as I said earlier, economics is a social science, and as such, it's intricately tied in with political science, philosophy, sociology, and psychology. What people do, what choices they make and why - that can be difficult to predict at any given time.
Economics is really not all that much different from politics, when you really think about it. When people talk about "capitalism vs. socialism," they're really talking about political systems, not really "economic systems."
I don't think that anyone has to worry about "socialism" in the same sense as China or North Korea, at least not in the U.S. I mentioned earlier (either in this thread or another thread) that the US and other Western liberal democracies were spared communist revolutions precisely because the capitalists were willing to make compromises and allow for better wages and working conditions. Things got much better for working people after WW2, as the period is considered one of huge economic growth and an overall increase in standard of living across the board. When people think of all the great things about capitalism, it's this period and beyond which they'll mainly look at.
Nixon and Khrushchev had their famous "kitchen debate" where they were comparing the two systems, and that seems to be the crux of the entire issue between capitalism and socialism. In the end, it usually comes down to "well, we just have more stuff than they do." And that may be true overall, but then there are some who have no stuff at all. That, coupled with the knowledge that much of the "stuff" we have comes from overseas by people working in sweatshops and other such low-wage facilities under horrid conditions, then the question becomes even more complicated.
So, sure, it does work for many people here in America, because...well, we're America, and it just seems to work out well for us, as well as a few other countries closely linked to our economy. That is, it works out for the upper classes, but it never really trickles down as much as one might expect. But overall, it really isn't that bad here.
I just think it would be wise to mindful of the overall situation, both within America and around the world where we do business. As I mentioned earlier, we need to have a system which is flexible and adaptable to a changing world.