Pareto optimality is incongruent with our biology, and Prof Daly recognizes this – his arbitrary 100:1 max-min may make sense on paper but how do we convince the ones currently in power to give up their relative advantages?

Historically there are almost zero cases of achieving what you ask. Therefore you can draw whatever conclusions you think are probable based upon the answer to your question being "they won't give up those advantages willingly."

Back where I come from, there are men who do nothing all day but good deeds. They are called phila-, er, er, philanth-er, yes, er, good-deed doers, and their hearts are no bigger than yours. But they have one thing you haven't got - a testimonial. --The Wizard

We mock Walmart or other examples of giving out employee recognition in place of an adequate living but Daly points to the military where pay disparity is not so large as 100:1. Why is this? The top ranks are payed in respect rather than money. When you are at the top, you have a chest full of testimonials. Military effectiveness depends crucially on force cohesion and too large a pay disparity gives the impression that the officers are not looking out for the troops which reduces morale and cohesion.

We have on-going examples of limiting pay disparity. Some automakers do it deliberately to get a more loyal workforce which provides a competitive advantage. The thrill of beating the competition seems to be pay enough in those cases.

Money is actually a surogate for respect and recognition after a certain point and the present too high compensation is actually a sign of distrust and disrespect, an attempt to buy loyalty to a company from those who lack the character to be loyal otherwise.

Chris