Player's unions for organizations like the NBA, NFL and NHL, parce out half of the income revenue to their players, and each player is given what they have negotiated for and their negotiations are based on how much money that player brings to the organization that owns the team, or somethingto that effect. I might be wrong about that but as far as the arguments in the class action lawsuit against the UFC, that reasoning was sited as an example of why the fighters should be paid their fair share. 50/50 makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not at all a financial expert, but this makes sense to me I'm kinda hopinf this community will poke holes in the idea so I can shore it up.
For large companies (I picked an arbitrary number of 100 or more employees for no real reason) half the of income revenue should be parced out to the labor pool and the other half to salaried administration and ownership.Not equally or arbitrarily of course it should be done based on how much each employee brings to the company and be estimated mathematically, but employee pay should be no less than 50% of the total average of what company income revenue is.
Walmart as an example has 2.2Million employees. half of their annual revenue is $2.795Billion. If half of revenue were parced out equally among all the employees the average pay would be around $127,000 per year so employee pay would be between $63,500 to $127,000 and if they used (or were forced to use 🤷) that as a pay model tax revenue goes up through employees and tax spending goes down also through employees, because of that whole thing about Walmart employees being the largest recipient of welfare in the US.
Please poke holes in this idea if your interested, it'll help me develop it more.
edited: for bold letter