If a law were enacted that required the highest earner in any company be paid no more than 25 times as much as the lowest (including stock options, cashed in vacation days, and severance), this would allow a CEO who paid a base of $40,000/year to be paid $1,000,000/year.
Do you think this would help combat income inequality? Do you think such a law would be just? Why or why not? Would you be more willing to agree with allowing a 50 times higher difference (20k - 1mil)?
|
If a law were enacted that required the highest earner in any company be paid no more than 25 times as much as the lowest (including stock options, cashed in vacation days, and severance), this would allow a CEO who paid a base of $40,000/year to be paid $1,000,000/year.
Do you think this would help combat income inequality? Do you think such a law would be just? Why or why not? Would you be more willing to agree with allowing a 50 times higher difference (20k - 1mil)?
Oddly enough 25:1 ratio scales to the 400 dollars a year - 10000 dollars a year for executives they were getting in 1945. So you might as well up minimum wage to its 1945 buying power which is now 93 thousand dollars.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh silliness.
companies pay what they have to pay to attract and keep the talent they need to attract. sometimes they make stupid decisions, but mostly, they try hard to get it right.
besides, wages are only one piece of the puzzle.
"Get it right" by whose standard? The shareholders, who want maximum profit for minimal expense? The workers who want wages they can live and raise a family on? I think a great many people would argue they're not getting it right at all.
What other pieces of the puzzle, besides wages do you see as significant in income inequality?
Calling it now. This is essentially going to break down to a Socialism vs Capitalism discussion cause that's what those two sides are. One is for worker rights and fair pay where nobody gets ahead or falls behind, the other is to make as much as you can and giving up the least.
While I suspect you're right, I'm interested to see if there's any middle to be had. I know specific posters, if they post, will advance their own "side", but I am curious if there's common ground.
Workers should be paid shares, not cash. Your income is then productivity based. You will need to buy in as a shareholder to get a minimum wage.
Problem with that is that then the shares are depreciated and/or don't matter because the board of directors will still hold the absolute vast majority of shares and therefore negate any possible vote by the workers.
|
|
Workers should be paid shares, not cash. Your income is then productivity based. You will need to buy in as a shareholder to get a minimum wage.Problem with that is that then the shares are depreciated and/or don't matter because the board of directors will still hold the absolute vast majority of shares and therefore negate any possible vote by the workers.
Which is why they should be forced to work for their shares as well. Nationalize all companies into a monopoly, assume zero shares at beginning and pay on productivity at one share per hour. shares held by the monopoly go to all employees.
Which is why they should be forced to work for their shares as well. Nationalize all companies into a monopoly, assume zero shares at beginning and pay on productivity at one share per hour. shares held by the monopoly go to all employees.Workers should be paid shares, not cash. Your income is then productivity based. You will need to buy in as a shareholder to get a minimum wage.Problem with that is that then the shares are depreciated and/or don't matter because the board of directors will still hold the absolute vast majority of shares and therefore negate any possible vote by the workers.
*shudders*
Which is why they should be forced to work for their shares as well. Nationalize all companies into a monopoly, assume zero shares at beginning and pay on productivity at one share per hour. shares held by the monopoly go to all employees.Workers should be paid shares, not cash. Your income is then productivity based. You will need to buy in as a shareholder to get a minimum wage.Problem with that is that then the shares are depreciated and/or don't matter because the board of directors will still hold the absolute vast majority of shares and therefore negate any possible vote by the workers.
You ought to have an advice column.
In fact... why don't you start a "ask yellowdingo for advice" thread? It would be an interesting read.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Knights Templar invented the paper check.
When the incursions into the holy land were underway, this drew mercantilism from all over Europe. People had a need to do trade, but they didn't want to necessarily bop around in the holy land carrying large amounts of gold and silver, for obvious reasons. So they'd deposit their gold and silver with the trusworthy Templars, receive a note, and trade it in for gold and silver when they got there.
Thus the term "good as gold" was coined.
After some time, the Templars had a considerable amount of gold and silver sitting about. The natural thing to want to do when you have a considerable amount of wealth just sitting around gathering dust is to loan it out to people, so as to generate interest.
The generation of interest, however, was not allowed by the Catholic Church. So, the Templars would "buy" real estate at purposefully reduced rates and thus they would earn interest for their loans that way. See, there was no rule that said you had to buy and sell shit at full market value. God's okay with it, just not the whole usury thing.
So, no matter what cheesy law you come up with, i.e. "you can't charge interest," or "you can't pay ceo's more than 20x what the minimum worker makes at his company," people are going to find a way around it. It's what a three year old does when he's being potty trained and you offer him M and M's for going to the potty: suddenly he has to tinkle 15 times a day.
This is why all these cheesy little gimmicks don't work. People min/max them.
More generally, the fact that people adapt is the reason that a) no eternally functioning system will ever be found, b) a healthy society changes and conservatism is a bad idea, c) history has no useful answers to big problems, and d) people need to be free and under little enough surveillance to be able to change the system when (not if) it doesn't work anymore.
So, no matter what cheesy law you come up with, i.e. "you can't charge interest," or "you can't pay ceo's more than 20x what the minimum worker makes at his company," people are going to find a way around it. It's what a three year old does when he's being potty trained and you offer him M and M's for going to the potty: suddenly he has to tinkle 15 times a day.
This is why all these cheesy little gimmicks don't work. People min/max them.
If they don't work, where are the mass of companies figuring out how not to pay minimum wage? Where are the American business using cheap child labour despite the law? Also, if nothing will ever work, would it be better to simply give up and let businesses do as they will?
More generally, the fact that people adapt is the reason that a) no eternally functioning system will ever be found, b) a healthy society changes and conservatism is a bad idea, c) history has no useful answers to big problems, and d) people need to be free and under little enough surveillance to be able to change the system when (not if) it doesn't work anymore.
Personally, I'd say the French Revolution is a great historical example of how people adapt and change the system to deal with the problem of massive inequality in the hierarchy once they reach breaking point... ;)
The French revolution is an example of what happens when enough people in the aristocracy are not gruntled enough. It's often forgotten, but the lower classes didn't come into it until quite a bit later.
If they don't work, where are the mass of companies figuring out how not to pay minimum wage? Where are the American business using cheap child labour despite the law? Also, if nothing will ever work, would it be better to simply give up and let businesses do as they will?So, no matter what cheesy law you come up with, i.e. "you can't charge interest," or "you can't pay ceo's more than 20x what the minimum worker makes at his company," people are going to find a way around it. It's what a three year old does when he's being potty trained and you offer him M and M's for going to the potty: suddenly he has to tinkle 15 times a day.
This is why all these cheesy little gimmicks don't work. People min/max them.
If companies don't want to pay minimum wages... and minimum wages are only written in the laws regarding some parts of the world... then... I hesitate to say this, because some evil company might actually decide to implement this idea I just had... could not companies move as much of their positions somewhere where there are no minimum wages? I know, that would be truly a terrible thing if they would start doing that... They could call it... hmmm... awaysourcing? farsourcing? Something like that?
It isn't the point that nothing will ever work. The point is, whatever solution you find WILL be temporary, and you WILL have to adapt and change to each new situation. It's all well and good to talk about revolutionary socialism, union power, and so on, but those in power know how to deal with those now if they need to. Find new ways, keep thinking. As someone told me in a poem once: Practice resurrection.
If they don't work, where are the mass of companies figuring out how not to pay minimum wage?So, no matter what cheesy law you come up with, i.e. "you can't charge interest," or "you can't pay ceo's more than 20x what the minimum worker makes at his company," people are going to find a way around it. It's what a three year old does when he's being potty trained and you offer him M and M's for going to the potty: suddenly he has to tinkle 15 times a day.
This is why all these cheesy little gimmicks don't work. People min/max them.
All over the place. One of the standard tricks, for example, is to turn employees into contractors. Another is outright wage theft. Feel free to google either.
If companies don't want to pay minimum wages... and minimum wages are only written in the laws regarding some parts of the world... then... I hesitate to say this, because some evil company might actually decide to implement this idea I just had... could not companies move as much of their positions somewhere where there are no minimum wages? I know, that would be truly a terrible thing if they would start doing that... They could call it... hmmm... awaysourcing? farsourcing? Something like that?
It isn't the point that nothing will ever work. The point is, whatever solution you find WILL be temporary, and you WILL have to adapt and change to each new situation. It's all well and good to talk about revolutionary socialism, union power, and so on, but those in power know how to deal with those now if they need to. Find new ways, keep thinking. As someone told me in a poem once: Practice resurrection.
Fair enough on the outsourcing, that's why I added "American" to the child labour one, I thought about Nike factories.
So it would work, but not forever? That's quite a bit different than won't work at all, and nothing lasts forever.
All over the place. One of the standard tricks, for example, is to turn employees into contractors. Another is outright wage theft. Feel free to google either.If they don't work, where are the mass of companies figuring out how not to pay minimum wage?So, no matter what cheesy law you come up with, i.e. "you can't charge interest," or "you can't pay ceo's more than 20x what the minimum worker makes at his company," people are going to find a way around it. It's what a three year old does when he's being potty trained and you offer him M and M's for going to the potty: suddenly he has to tinkle 15 times a day.
This is why all these cheesy little gimmicks don't work. People min/max them.
No need to Google, I had forgotten about "independent contractors". What a scam. Ah well, nothing to start the day like renewed disappointment in humanity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or unpaid interns. I was offered a full-time unpaid internship, I had to ask how they expected me to live.
They don't!
If companies don't want to pay minimum wages... and minimum wages are only written in the laws regarding some parts of the world... then... I hesitate to say this, because some evil company might actually decide to implement this idea I just had... could not companies move as much of their positions somewhere where there are no minimum wages? I know, that would be truly a terrible thing if they would start doing that... They could call it... hmmm... awaysourcing? farsourcing? Something like that?
It isn't the point that nothing will ever work. The point is, whatever solution you find WILL be temporary, and you WILL have to adapt and change to each new situation. It's all well and good to talk about revolutionary socialism, union power, and so on, but those in power know how to deal with those now if they need to. Find new ways, keep thinking. As someone told me in a poem once: Practice resurrection.
Fair enough on the outsourcing, that's why I added "American" to the child labour one, I thought about Nike factories.
Nike isn't an American company?
More generally, I think you misunderstand how easy it is to outsource, even for tiny businesses. If it doesn't have to be done on site,I can probably have it done in Vietnam.
If companies don't want to pay minimum wages... and minimum wages are only written in the laws regarding some parts of the world... then... I hesitate to say this, because some evil company might actually decide to implement this idea I just had... could not companies move as much of their positions somewhere where there are no minimum wages? I know, that would be truly a terrible thing if they would start doing that... They could call it... hmmm... awaysourcing? farsourcing? Something like that?
It isn't the point that nothing will ever work. The point is, whatever solution you find WILL be temporary, and you WILL have to adapt and change to each new situation. It's all well and good to talk about revolutionary socialism, union power, and so on, but those in power know how to deal with those now if they need to. Find new ways, keep thinking. As someone told me in a poem once: Practice resurrection.
Fair enough on the outsourcing, that's why I added "American" to the child labour one, I thought about Nike factories.
So it would work, but not forever? That's quite a bit different than won't work at all, and nothing lasts forever.
People adapt to every new system you put in place. Every solution you make, especially if it works, will become obsolete. Sure, it may work for a while, as you say, but people will adapt. And cheap child labour is not interesting if you can have equally cheap grown-up labour.
You know, adaptation is the chief reason that all these economic depressions and downturns do not solve easily. Countercyclic spending etc may have been the answer back then, but today, people are aware of these mechanisms and see them as an opportunity. And the truly sad part is that people are surprised by this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, adaptation is the chief reason that all these economic depressions and downturns do not solve easily. Countercyclic spending etc may have been the answer back then, but today, people are aware of these mechanisms and see them as an opportunity. And the truly sad part is that people are surprised by this.
Except that countercyclic spending appears to still be the answer -- the fact that a lot of people disagree with it for ideological reasons doesn't make it wrong. Paul Krugman has graphs a-plenty showing that where countercyclical spending was allowed to work in the aftermath of the 2008 crash, it worked exactly as predicted. When it was not allowed to work, the effects of the proposed alternatives acted in exactly the way that Keynesian theory said that the alternatives would work.
Not sure a top down approach is really the best way to deal with income inequality...would rather have a bottom up approach, as in increasing minimum wage, improving health access, reducing student debt, etc.
Not sure a top down approach is really the best way to deal with income inequality...would rather have a bottom up approach, as in increasing minimum wage, improving health access, reducing student debt, etc.
That's an interesting definition of "bottom up." How are you planning on having the minimum wage enact itself without (top down) imposition of authority from the government?
How are you planning on improving health access without something like Obamacare or the National Health Service?
Are you suggesting that students should simply repudiate their loan debt en masse or were you planning some sort of policy change at the top that would allow them actually to reduce the debt load?
Not sure a top down approach is really the best way to deal with income inequality...would rather have a bottom up approach, as in increasing minimum wage, improving health access, reducing student debt, etc.That's an interesting definition of "bottom up." How are you planning on having the minimum wage enact itself without (top down) imposition of authority from the government?
How are you planning on improving health access without something like Obamacare or the National Health Service?
Are you suggesting that students should simply repudiate their loan debt en masse or were you planning some sort of policy change at the top that would allow them actually to reduce the debt load?
I think he may have meant improving the situation for those at the bottom rather than some sort of artificial restriction on those at the top. But that's just a guess.
I think he may have meant improving the situation for those at the bottom rather than some sort of artificial restriction on those at the top. But that's just a guess.
The problem is that the situation at the top is equally artificial. For example, one of the reasons that the OP mentioned stock options is because of the unusual way that stock options are treated under US tax law, which makes them a more efficient way to transfer wealth from the company to the executive. By giving executive pay more favorable tax treatment, that encourages companies to spend more on executives than on ordinary workers. Would it be "top down" and therefore to be discouraged to the various loopholes that encourage inequality?
If not,.... well, you'll never plug all the loopholes, but it could be more effective simply to create blanket policy that trumps them. If it is "top down," you'll never solve the inequality problem because you've defined it as something never-to-be-solved.
The problem with the specific proposal in the OP is that it's simply stupid. There are lots of organizations where the value of the top producers vastly exceeds fifty times the value of the lowest rungs on the ladder. A professional sports team is a good example -- a third or fourth string player who may not see playing time from one week to another isn't worth what a starting and starring player in a high-skill position is. A bankable movie star is worth much more than the person who holds the director's coffee cup.
The problem is that income inequality has gotten out of control precisely from the artificial pay situations we've created over the past seventy or so years (reduction of the top tax rates, special treatment of various forms of investment income, treatment of non-cash compensation such as stock grants and options, and so forth). It costs more for a typical company to pay 1000 people $1000 more each than to pay a single executive $2,000,000 more. Bring the costs in line and inequality will naturally drop.
I think he may have meant improving the situation for those at the bottom rather than some sort of artificial restriction on those at the top. But that's just a guess.Not sure a top down approach is really the best way to deal with income inequality...would rather have a bottom up approach, as in increasing minimum wage, improving health access, reducing student debt, etc.That's an interesting definition of "bottom up." How are you planning on having the minimum wage enact itself without (top down) imposition of authority from the government?
How are you planning on improving health access without something like Obamacare or the National Health Service?
Are you suggesting that students should simply repudiate their loan debt en masse or were you planning some sort of policy change at the top that would allow them actually to reduce the debt load?
That is exactly what I meant
If they don't work, where are the mass of companies figuring out how not to pay minimum wage? Where are the American business using cheap child labour despite the law? Also, if nothing will ever work, would it be better to simply give up and let businesses do as they will?So, no matter what cheesy law you come up with, i.e. "you can't charge interest," or "you can't pay ceo's more than 20x what the minimum worker makes at his company," people are going to find a way around it. It's what a three year old does when he's being potty trained and you offer him M and M's for going to the potty: suddenly he has to tinkle 15 times a day.
This is why all these cheesy little gimmicks don't work. People min/max them.
Do you want the list in alphabetical order or by foreign country? That's the dark side of having minimum wages: it drives businesses to seek cheaper foreign labor, in places not too concerned about niceties such as OSHA rules and regulations and child labor laws.
Here's what they can do against a wage cap for ceo's: create a multitiered corporate entity with the bottom level pay scale in the subcontracted corporation division(s) of the main corporation. So you can put your 20k/year guys in that subcontracted company or companies. That leaves the upper level management guys in the main company starting at 100k in the same upper level corporation as the CEO, who now has a maximum pay of 20 times that. THEN, put his wife on the payroll, maybe his cousin, funnel him payments like that, and hell; he can even be the CEO of the subcontracted corporation or corporations and pull in 20x 20k. If you create enough subcontracted corporations, you can get his wages back up there.
Then, I don't see the exact verbiage of the law. Does it cover bonuses due to making financial goals? Is that limited? There would probably be enough wiggle room when the actual law was written that these sharks would figure out how to pay their CEO enough money to attract and retain him or her.
There are ways around it. This is just what I, a not so sophisticated business person came up with in 10 minutes. These sharks have more ideas, I'm sure.
If a law were enacted that required the highest earner in any company be paid no more than 25 times as much as the lowest (including stock options, cashed in vacation days, and severance), this would allow a CEO who paid a base of $40,000/year to be paid $1,000,000/year.
Do you think this would help combat income inequality? Do you think such a law would be just? Why or why not? Would you be more willing to agree with allowing a 50 times higher difference (20k - 1mil)?
As awesome as this sounds it would destroy any economy it was tried in... except perhaps purely agricultural ones. Most of the American economy is the Service Industry. And they operate with a large labor force and limited profits per worker. If BIG companies with fat cat CEOs suddenly have to pay their line workers $4 million/year then they suddenly start losing money unless they dramatically cut back on workers and radically increase what they charge. If the change is steep enough you will have both runaway inflation AND massive unemployment simultaneously. Most likely any company with the means to do so would leave the US and those that can't will fail. Assuming the government can keep order during all that and somehow keep from having the law instantly removed by popular vote then in the long haul all that will be left are farms and small mom and pop stores with low profitability leading to less than subsistence wages required by law. It is likely the hungry Americans would seek opportunities in Mexico or Canada and start illegally crossing the borders.
Sound doom and gloom? It is a worst case scenario.
My numbers sound off? That is based on; Starbucks CEO earns 117 million a year 1/25th of that is over $4 million. Can you imagine what they would have to charge for a cup of coffee to make that viable? You would need a second mortgage just to request a sugar packet. What survives? Little ma and pa operations that earn $50,000 per yer would only need to pay workers $2,000 a year. Suddenly the tiny player is the most profitable one. Welcome to 3rd world status.
thejeff it was just one worst case scenario. If most of the nations biggest employers suddenly rage quit as you suggest and end millions upon millions of jobs all at once I can't see that doing wonders for any economy either.
Speaking of which...I didn't go to the Left Forum in NYC because I am poor as shiznit and now I have to watch my NH comrades on Facebook. He gets interviewed by Venezuelan state television and she gets selfies taken with Cornel West.
Jealous revolutionary goblin is jealous.
We have to talk worst case scenarios really since this would never have a snowballs chance in hell of getting put into law.
CEOs mass quitting because they're not getting paid enough is not the same as employers shutting down and ending millions and millions of jobs. Somebody will take the job for the lousy half million a year.
Wait, wait, hold your horses... It IS the same thing unless you are ONLY applying this to PAID employees and NOT to owners as well?! Which seems weird. So the guys who OWN Ford motor co can rake in millions as long as they ONLY pay executives 25 times the workers rate? Your not helping anyone with that now it's just a punitive attack on the highest tiers of PAID management. So under your interpretation yes you are right all you will have is a bunch of unhappy unemployed executives who now have a lot of reason to spend their big savings on ruining you politically. No worker has been improved at all. If anything you just made the owners even richer while forcing them to manage their own business. Heck if owners are exempt as you say then all that will likely happen is the biggest corporate restructuring in world history.
|
|
Do you think this would help combat income inequality?
Probably. The best and brightest would move to freer societies and as everyone's standard of living decreased, the gap would close.
Do you think such a law would be just? Why or why not?
No. A just law, like laws against murder and theft, protects folks from receiving a negative. This law would force businesses to give a positive, like forcing someone rich and handsome to date someone akin to the Elephant Man. Dating equality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think this would help combat income inequality?
Probably. The best and brightest would move to freer societies and as everyone's standard of living decreased, the gap would close.
Do you think such a law would be just? Why or why not?No. A just law, like laws against murder and theft, protects folks from receiving a negative. This law would force businesses to give a positive, like forcing someone rich and handsome to date someone akin to the Elephant Man. Dating equality.
Seems perfectly reasonable.
|
If a law were enacted that required the highest earner in any company be paid no more than 25 times as much as the lowest (including stock options, cashed in vacation days, and severance), this would allow a CEO who paid a base of $40,000/year to be paid $1,000,000/year.
Do you think this would help combat income inequality? Do you think such a law would be just? Why or why not? Would you be more willing to agree with allowing a 50 times higher difference (20k - 1mil)?
The real question that needs to be answered is "Why do you have a problem with income inequality?"
If you work 10 hours and your friend works 1 hour should you not be paid more? Income inequality!
If your job is very important or rare should you not be paid more than someone whose job is less important and common? Income inequality!!
Should the President be paid more than a mailman? Income inequality!!!
The whole idea that some people get paid too much is silly. If you can be easily replaced you will not be paid very much. If you have a special skill set or perform a rare or valuable or popular service you will be paid more.
What we learn from history is that economic equality can only be achieved by bringing everyone in society DOWN to the level of the lowest producers and only through TYRANNY. Why? Because you can't make unintelligent people smarter and you can't make lazy people more motivated but it is pretty easy to kill smart people and intimidate productive people into not being productive. Just ask the Russians, Chinese, Cambodians, North Koreans, etc. etc. etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seems perfectly reasonable.Do you think this would help combat income inequality?
Probably. The best and brightest would move to freer societies and as everyone's standard of living decreased, the gap would close.
Do you think such a law would be just? Why or why not?No. A just law, like laws against murder and theft, protects folks from receiving a negative. This law would force businesses to give a positive, like forcing someone rich and handsome to date someone akin to the Elephant Man. Dating equality.
*slow clap*
Corporations are most effectively controlled by denying them the right to keep secrets. The bottom line is merely priority 2.