CEOs work harder every hour than their wage slaves do every season.

[Tiberius]

Have you listened to how they talk about the poor people of the world? The idea there sure seems to be that they didn't do enough work to deserve more than minimum wage. Why can't we apply the same logic to the people at the upper end of that spectrum?

I never said you can't apply the same logic to them. The problem is, what people 'deserve' and how much a job is 'worth' are subjective. An unskilled worker may feel that they deserve a certain amount, but at the end of the day, they can be replaced by hundreds of people who would love to have any job. For a business, paying unskilled employees the least amount of money they will accept for a job is one of the ways you maximize profit.

Unfortunately, society has developed in such a way that almost the same thing applies for CEOs. All the big companies pay their CEOs large amounts, so a company that tries to hire a CEO for less than expected will not find many people willing to take the salary (bear in mind most CEOs have done the job before, or were other types of executive, and so used to large salaries). Take the example of Ben and Jerry's, an ice-cream company that originally had a corporate policy where the maximum a person could earn was 7 times that of the lowest paid employee. It was a great policy whilst the company was growing, but it had to be scrapped eventually, because they wouldn't have been able to hire the people they wanted.

So I think we agree with the general sentiment that CEOs could definitely earn less, but we disagree on what should be done about it. You likely believe the government should step in and cap salaries. I believe it's none of the government's business, and instead we should focus on changing social values, organizing boycots, and if the government is to be involved at all, it should be to pass sweeping legislation to end corporatism and stop businesses trying to create laws that favour them and try to squash their competition.

[kılıç_mehmet]

You can't buy happiness with money, said the poet.
So I bought the poet.
poor people go to hell

[Ryantology]

So I think we agree with the general sentiment that CEOs could definitely earn less, but we disagree on what should be done about it. You likely believe the government should step in and cap salaries. I believe it's none of the government's business, and instead we should focus on changing social values, organizing boycots, and if the government is to be involved at all, it should be to pass sweeping legislation to end corporatism and stop businesses trying to create laws that favour them and try to squash their competition.

I believe the government should step in and cap salaries because that is one of the things I, as a voter, want from the people I've elected.

"Changing social values" is a vague solution that, even if successful, will take too long. In America, we've tried the passive approach for the last 35 years and the result is that things are worse than ever.

[Minimalist]

I have to agree with Divi Tiberio here. It is not the government's place to cap anyone's salary.

However, the government can tax the ever-loving shit out of the sons-of-bitches. That they can do!

[Ryantology]

I have to agree with Divi Tiberio here. It is not the government's place to cap anyone's salary.

However, the government can tax the ever-loving shit out of the sons-of-bitches. That they can do!

Rather than an absolute cap, I like the idea that Mister Agenda mentioned earlier: require that a CEO pay their entry-level employees no less than a reasonable dividend of their own salaries. Low double-digits. 20X, max. That way, if a CEO still has to have a $60 million dollar salary, the entry-level employee will have to earn $3 million a year.

Executives would probably own workers as slaves if the government didn't prevent them from doing it, so let's give execs the incentive: the more they pay their lowest employees, the more they will be able to earn.

Because, I really don't share the opinion that CEOs are drawn from a minuscule pool of superhuman talent and that entitles them to make as much as half their entire workforce, combined.

[Minimalist]

Executives would probably own workers as slaves if the government didn't prevent them from doing it,

Right.

Because, I really don't share the opinion that CEOs are drawn from a minuscule pool of superhuman talent

Again, right. Let's take the Koch brothers and that other worthless turd, Romney.

All 3 of them inherited piles of money from daddy. In the case of the Kochs' daddy was a big help to Stalin and made a fortune because of it.

One might say they were born with a silver stick up their asses.

[TAW]

If by working harder, one means that the CEO is attempting to perfect his golf swing at the country club, then I would agree.

Spending all that money is a job in of itself.

[Tiberius]

Ryantology,

Ben & Jerries tried your method. It didn't work. If a government tried it, I doubt it would work either. There are plenty of companies in other countries that pay their CEOs large amounts; so the companies would most likely move abroad.

The problem is that any multiplying factor you pick is going to be arbitrary. I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that the most deserving and important job in the world is worth only 20x more than the least deserving and least important.

As for higher taxes, take a look at France if you want to see how their tax system has failed. Taxing ridiculously high amounts only causes the wealthy to leave the country.

[Ryantology]

Ryantology,

Ben & Jerries tried your method. It didn't work. If a government tried it, I doubt it would work either. There are plenty of companies in other countries that pay their CEOs large amounts; so the companies would most likely move abroad.

It can't work for any one company if the rest don't have to.

Companies that want out are free to go. They can take with them a burdensome tax penalty for continuing to do business within the United States unless they feel like giving up on the market altogether. Other companies will rise to fill in the gaps. Plenty of buisesses are started by people who don't feel entitled to eight figure salaries. Other countries will follow suit, undoubtedly, leaving companies who wish to be exploitative nowhere to sell anything.

Companies don't need 50 million dollar executives to function. They do need motivated workers and a market to function. It is becoming time to make this known.

The problem is that any multiplying factor you pick is going to be arbitrary. I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that the most deserving and important job in the world is worth only 20x more than the least deserving and least important.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the current system is somehow closer to objective.

As for higher taxes, take a look at France if you want to see how their tax system has failed. Taxing ridiculously high amounts only causes the wealthy to leave the country.

Maybe. That's why the world's largest economies need to work together on this so that they have nowhere to run to. We really don't have any choice but to force responsibility on the super wealthy. Left to their own devices, they will work you as hard as they can get away with, for as little as they can get away with, thriving on the poverty they are deliberately manufacturing because who cares if your operation is grinding a few thousand more people into penury? As long as you can add another meaningless zero on your paycheck, that's all that matters.

[là bạn điên]

Have you listened to how they talk about the poor people of the world? The idea there sure seems to be that they didn't do enough work to deserve more than minimum wage. Why can't we apply the same logic to the people at the upper end of that spectrum?

What do you mean 'we'? You are free to pay a CEO of your company anything you please

And, yet, many of those CEO's still get paid obscenely large amounts even when they run their company into the ground. The executives that ran the banks into the ground, necessitating the bail outs from 2008? They still got pretty hefty wages, with those bail outs going for many of their bonuses. Hostess went bankrupt shortly after their executives got big fat bonuses themselves, while those same executives were demanding their labor force take a pay-cut. Naturally, they only blamed the labor when the company went under.

You evidence that they onl;y blamed the labour or are you just making it up?

Not always an option, especially in rural areas. If you don't want to contribute money to the oil companies, well, too bad because you still need to drive a car to function and every time you fill up the tank, you contibute to them. You want to go shopping without contributing to Walmart? Good luck if Walmart is the only store within 30 miles. It gets worse when poverty is added tothe mix and people have plenty of other options, we just can't really afford any of them.

The cost of filling up your car is directly related to the cost of Oil worldwide and the tax teh government puts on it. Oil companies have very little effect on their pirces

---

It can't work for any one company if the rest don't have to.

Companies that want out are free to go. They can take with them a burdensome tax penalty for continuing to do business within the United States unless they feel like giving up on the market altogether.

So you want to drive business out the enforce protectionism. Love to see the economty after you have destroyed it

Other companies will rise to fill in the gaps. Plenty of buisesses are started by people who don't feel entitled to eight figure salaries. Other countries will follow suit, undoubtedly, leaving companies who wish to be exploitative nowhere to sell anything.

I can assure you other countries won;t follow your example.

Companies don't need 50 million dollar executives to function. They do need motivated workers and a market to function. It is becoming time to make this known.

Incredible how you know so much more than companies how to run them. What exactly do you do for a living?

Surely you aren't suggesting that the current system is somehow closer to objective.

What do you mean "objective'?

Maybe. That's why the world's largest economies need to work together on this so that they have nowhere to run to..

Hilarious. You tax your CEOs so they leave and we will be delighted to bring them to the UK just as we have taken so many dynamic French business leaders.

We really don't have any choice but to force responsibility on the super wealthy. Left to their own devices, they will work you as hard as they can get away with, for as little as they can get away with, thriving on the poverty they are deliberately manufacturing because who cares if your operation is grinding a few thousand more people into penury? As long as you can add another meaningless zero on your paycheck, that's all that matters.

.

Why do we have 'no choice'? You really think that by taxing them more the companies they work for will pay their workforce a higher wage? Economics really isn't your thing is it?