Should The US CONSIDER Creating A Maximum Wage Ratio?

  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 21, 2013 8:58 PM GMT
    U.S. should copy Switzerland and consider a 'maximum wage' ratio, too
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/sutter-swiss-executive-pay/index.html?hpt=us_t2



    As Inequality Grows, Swiss To Vote On Curbing Executive Pay

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/11/22/246678622/swiss-inequality-is-growing-would-curbing-exec-pay-matter


    NPR:

    http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=246678622&m=246678599
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 21, 2013 10:20 PM GMT
    It makes sense that unfairness is bad for democracy. Even monkeys know that.

    Bromoflexual saidThis is simultaneously fascinating and hilarious icon_lol.gif with a little bit of sad icon_sad.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2013 10:51 PM GMT
    No that is the wrong way to go about it, instead the government needs to classify all the different jobs and set what the pay will be for those jobs.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 21, 2013 11:04 PM GMT
    VillageMike saidNo that is the wrong way to go about it, instead the government needs to classify all the different jobs and set what the pay will be for those jobs.

    No, I disagree with this. The government doesn't get to create a wage hierarchy..... They may be able to regulate to prevent unfair labor practices, but they shouldn't be the contributors of the unfairness itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 2:55 AM GMT
    Proof that obvious examples of central planning only leads to hopeless clusterfuck cannot penetrate the most devoted leftists.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 2:58 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    VillageMike saidNo that is the wrong way to go about it, instead the government needs to classify all the different jobs and set what the pay will be for those jobs.

    No, I disagree with this. The government doesn't get to create a wage hierarchy..... They may be able to regulate to prevent unfair labor practices, but they shouldn't be the contributors of the unfairness itself.


    But the government can do this through regulation. They have the right to do it with the commerce clause and also they have been doing it very well for decades with the pay for government employees. The system works. It should be expanded to the entire country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 3:12 AM GMT
    You want a bureaucrat deciding what you should get paid? I sure as hell don't. They tried that in the soviet union, it doesn't work.
  • Apparition

    Posts: 3529

    Nov 22, 2013 3:31 AM GMT
    just make the TAX rate, the ratio

    in addition, make all public companies pick a year end, and on that date, the entire float is auctioned to the highest bidder, who says how many shares he wants, then redo the auction with the remainder, until nothing left. The price is then evenly divided by holding weight among last year's shareholders.

    Stock would not be sold at any other time.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 3:35 AM GMT
    I'm super against lazy-faire capitalism, you know, where the powers that be get to sit back and pay others to fuck everyone over. But I'm not a total socialist either. Probably I fall into the category of social capitalism.

    By that I'd have trouble limiting how much money someone might make but I might have no problem taxing the fuck out of it.

    The redistribution of the wealth from society at large to the wealthy is obviously by now sick. So how about this. They get to rape us as much as they want, but then we get to pillage their booty to the hilt. A fuck for a fuck seems fucking fair. We could even be more than fair. how about this: to help maintain incentive, over and beyond a certain amount of taxation, the rapists get to direct where some of those taxes go, to prioritize within a variety of identified social needs.

    1929-1969.jpg

    1969-2008.jpg
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 22, 2013 3:53 AM GMT
    If done properly, having a maximum wage ratio MAY possibly increase average wages, which is really what we need to get this economy going again.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 4:08 AM GMT
    metta8 saidIf done properly, having a maximum wage ratio MAY possibly increase average wages, which is really what we need to get this economy going again.


    Why go for a "MAY" when the sure thing for equalizing pay among all the workers is government-set pay guidelines? Go for the sure thing!
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 22, 2013 4:50 AM GMT
    topathlete said
    metta8 saidIf done properly, having a maximum wage ratio MAY possibly increase average wages, which is really what we need to get this economy going again.

    If the government sets both minimum wages and maximum wages then wouldn't it be logical for the government to set all wages in between? While we're at it, wouldn't it also be logical for the government to limit the profit to be paid to shareholders?

    Aren't you really advocating eliminating the private sector completely?

    Only Village Mike is advocating that (and he seems trollish).

    Are you against minimum wage?
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 22, 2013 6:59 AM GMT
    topathlete said
    metta8 saidIf done properly, having a maximum wage ratio MAY possibly increase average wages, which is really what we need to get this economy going again.

    If the government sets both minimum wages and maximum wages then wouldn't it be logical for the government to set all wages in between? While we're at it, wouldn't it also be logical for the government to limit the profit to be paid to shareholders?

    Aren't you really advocating eliminating the private sector completely?


    I'm self employed. If I was against the private sector, I would be against myself. I don't think the government should control set wages in between. And having a maximum ratio would not limit people to only making $100 million a year or even $1 billion a year. I also don't think that the 1:12 ratio is realistic. It should be much bigger. I don't know what would be good to set it at.

    Maybe the idea wont work. I'm not sure. For example, if you have lawyers that charge over $1,000/hr, what would be a fair wage for someone who cleans the windows in that office?
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 22, 2013 8:13 AM GMT
    metta8 said
    topathlete said
    metta8 saidIf done properly, having a maximum wage ratio MAY possibly increase average wages, which is really what we need to get this economy going again.

    If the government sets both minimum wages and maximum wages then wouldn't it be logical for the government to set all wages in between? While we're at it, wouldn't it also be logical for the government to limit the profit to be paid to shareholders?

    Aren't you really advocating eliminating the private sector completely?


    I'm self employed. If I was against the private sector, I would be against myself. I don't think the government should control set wages in between. And having a maximum ratio would not limit people to only making $100 million a year or even $1 billion a year. I also don't think that the 1:12 ratio is realistic. It should be much bigger. I don't know what would be good to set it at.

    Maybe the idea wont work. I'm not sure. For example, if you have lawyers that charge over $1,000/hr, what would be a fair wage for someone who cleans the windows in that office?

    They'd outsource the window cleaning...

    I think it's not unseasonable for companies to be compelled to pay fairer wages or profit sharing to their employees. Didn't the article say the CEO of JCPenny makes 12,000,000 per year? The people who actually work in the stores make very little, not to mention everything they sell is likely made in overseas sweatshops.icon_confused.gif
  • carew28

    Posts: 661

    Nov 22, 2013 9:28 PM GMT
    I'm in favor of a maximum wage, as set forward in the link.

    The perennial argument given for not increasing the minimum wage is that it will cause the elimination of jobs. Yet the perennial argument given for increasing the salaries of upper-level administrators is that we need to have the best, highest quality administrators, and they will go elsewhere if they aren't given raises and other perks.

    Having a maximum wage would eliminate the second argument. And it would allow the money saved to increase the compensation for those at the bottom, raising them above subsistence level.

    I don't believe in wage equality. Some jobs are harder, and require more compensation. And talented/skilled people need to be encouraged to utilize their talents, with increased compensation being the reward. But the present income disparity is ridiculous, and needs to be brought back under control. People who work long, hard hours at drudgery/unskilled jobs are performing a service that is vital and necessary, and should be compensated at a level that will give them some reward for their labor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 22, 2013 11:00 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    topathlete said
    metta8 saidIf done properly, having a maximum wage ratio MAY possibly increase average wages, which is really what we need to get this economy going again.

    If the government sets both minimum wages and maximum wages then wouldn't it be logical for the government to set all wages in between? While we're at it, wouldn't it also be logical for the government to limit the profit to be paid to shareholders?

    Aren't you really advocating eliminating the private sector completely?

    Only Village Mike is advocating that (and he seems trollish).


    I noticed. Either one of the rare ultra Left or a conserv trying to make liberals look bad. (I suspect the latter)
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 26, 2013 12:32 AM GMT
    ^
    Thanks for the update. icon_smile.gif

    I wonder if it would have done better if the ratio was more realistic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2013 10:58 PM GMT
    topathlete said
    Aristoshark saidI really don't think this should be legislated. But I do think it should be pursued by shareholders.

    Agree.


    Agree.
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 26, 2013 11:55 PM GMT
    The shareholders interest is to maximize their investment. How would creating a maximum wage ratio be in the best interest of stockholders? In most cases, I don't think it would be. It would either have to be the philosophy of the company or forced by government laws.

    We have historically seen that economies are healthier when wealth is not so concentrated at the top as it is today. It would be in the best interest of society to discourage too much wealth at the top.

    No system is perfect. But I wish that we would at least even the playing field of influence on the government. This is why I wish that we could eliminate all political contributions as well as not allow politicians to become lobbyists or work for a government contractor for a certain period of time after being in office.
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 27, 2013 12:01 AM GMT
    ^
    But they are paying those incomes often times based on what other CEO's in their industry are being paid. They want to get the best CEO money can buy that will maximize their investments. If they implement a maximum wage ratio that their competitors don't have, that may hurt them.
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Nov 30, 2013 7:25 AM GMT
    Banned TED Talk: Nick Hanauer "Rich people don't create jobs"


  • Chainers

    Posts: 375

    Nov 30, 2013 8:00 PM GMT
    These things are always easier said than done. Personally, I think CEOs should be paid a small base of around $1 million and the rest should be in stock options. Do I think a CEO who makes the most money out of stock options should be punished because he helped a company perform better? No.

    End of discussion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 30, 2013 8:07 PM GMT
    Chainers saidThese things are always easier said than done. Personally, I think CEOs should be paid a small base of around $1 million and the rest should be in stock options. Do I think a CEO who makes the most money out of stock options should be punished because he helped a company perform better? No.



    Now stop it with the end of discussion stuff, you. That's a good idea. If the stocks sink so does Mr CEO. Excellent.
  • Chainers

    Posts: 375

    Nov 30, 2013 8:27 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    Chainers saidThese things are always easier said than done. Personally, I think CEOs should be paid a small base of around $1 million and the rest should be in stock options. Do I think a CEO who makes the most money out of stock options should be punished because he helped a company perform better? No.



    Now stop it with the end of discussion stuff, you. That's a good idea. If the stocks sink so does Mr CEO. Excellent.


    Its true thought. It also makes sense and companies perform better. JC Penny who is paying a buttload to the CEO is making a stupid decision, and it is not the governments job to prevent companies from making stupid decisions. If we do a wage cap, then we are going to see things like janitors and cleaning staff completely outsourced and then they would get less benefits than they already have. At least now the company has to pay for their insurance and some of their retirement benefits too.
  • metta

    Posts: 39144

    Dec 01, 2013 1:56 AM GMT
    1470079_10152042363884255_557207907_n.pn