RE: CEOs work harder every hour than their wage slaves do every season.
January 29, 2014 at 1:11 pm
(This post was last modified: January 29, 2014 at 1:13 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(January 26, 2014 at 9:26 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:(January 26, 2014 at 8:59 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: The issue here is value of labour. You get just about any body that will make a good employee at macdonalds, where as few people have what it takes to run one of these massive companies. Some of those guys spend 16 hours a day building those companies from the ground up, others slit some throats to get into position, and many do both.
I understand that and I'm not suggesting that a burger flipper deserves to earn wages equal to the salary of the CEO. I'm suggesting that the difference in labor value is not exponential. CEOs should make more, no argument there. What I want to know is, what is the justification for CEOs making obscene amounts of money off the backs of people he pays so little that those people can't afford to live a life secure from poverty?
I can never be a libertarian because I cannot come up with even the slightest justification for the proposition that people who literally have no material need should be able to continue accumulating unnecessary personal wealth at the direct expense of people who can't afford basic survival with (or in many tragic cases, without) government assistance, let alone a moderate, minimally secure lifestyle.
CEOs of major companies can still be ridiculously wealthy while paying their employees enough for a financially-secure lifestyle. Owners of small businesses can still make enough for a comfortable lifestyle while paying their employees enough for a financially-secure lifestyle. If they can't, why should they be owning or operating buisnesses? They are clearly not good at it.
The big money CEOs (most of them are not Fortune 500) are so highly paid for much the same reason basketball stars are highly paid: they're a scarce commodity that makes a big difference on how much the franchise can bring in, so there's a bidding war for their services. They're paid what it takes to keep them from working for someone else. They're offered golden parachutes so if it doesn't work out they leave quietly--like a prenup to avoid a messy divorce, it's worth it. Capping their pay and benefits to, say, 10x the pay of their lowest paid employee would have...interesting...economic effects.
