Maximum Wage (not a tax bracket)
- Thread starter Success_Machine
- Start date
And his startup was pretty small too, as I understand it. He probably could have stayed within the 5:1 maximum wage ratio and still paid himself a massive fortune.
Maybe he could they only have 2,000 employees but because of that does he deserve more or less than the CEO of Google with it's 20,000 employees or Boeing with its 100,000?
Big OOPS, the bigger the company, the more demanding and harder the job is being the CEO, but the lower your compensation will be.
Arthur
Big OOPS, the bigger the company, the more demanding and harder the job is being the CEO, but the lower your compensation will be.
Arthur
Of course you don't like my input - because I've shot down your hare-brained ideas from the start (it took very little effort to do so).
Tell me: Have you even though about HOW you would go about getting your 5:1 plan in motion? And have you even considered the consequences of it? There would be several very bad ones - are you even aware of any of them?
I disagree. The CEO would distribute his workload to management one level below him. There would only be a handful of them. They, in turn, would have people working for them. True, the scope of their decisions would be larger, so they would get paid more than the people who work for them, but I doubt their job would be all that more demanding. There is a limit to what a single person can accomplish. I propose that limit should be reflected by a policy statement that executives should not be paid more than 5-times what the lowest paid worker gets.
It's obvious form your posts that you have never worked in a large company or have any idea what a CEO actually does.
If there is, as you say, a limit to what one person can do, why do you think we pay top executives as much as we do?
According to you, the President's work day only has the same intrinsic value, scope, complexity and committment as 5 paiges in the Senate.
Arthur
If there is, as you say, a limit to what one person can do, why do you think we pay top executives as much as we do?
According to you, the President's work day only has the same intrinsic value, scope, complexity and committment as 5 paiges in the Senate.
Arthur
Last edited:
Mod HatRead-only reported post 25, and I can see why it may be offensive to him, but IMHO, not enough for any action on my part; however, there is little excuse for asserting things about another poster, so lets stop that.
I thought adoucette's post 23 made some good points as to why SM's suggested 5 to1 salary ratio was not a good idea and in posts I read SM has not offered any strong reason to think his idea is a good one (or rebutted points made in post 23).
I don't mind people calling an idea /suggestion "stupid" etc, but do dislike terms like that applied to posters (Although I do it myself occasionally when some one keeps up with ideas or claimed facts that have been well refuted by other posters).
While it is often true that as people age, they are less creative, more stuck in their views, it is also often not the case. I am pretty old myself, but have lots of new ideas still.
I thought adoucette's post 23 made some good points as to why SM's suggested 5 to1 salary ratio was not a good idea and in posts I read SM has not offered any strong reason to think his idea is a good one (or rebutted points made in post 23).
I don't mind people calling an idea /suggestion "stupid" etc, but do dislike terms like that applied to posters (Although I do it myself occasionally when some one keeps up with ideas or claimed facts that have been well refuted by other posters).
While it is often true that as people age, they are less creative, more stuck in their views, it is also often not the case. I am pretty old myself, but have lots of new ideas still.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Are you saying if ALL means of production belonged to the government that there would be no fraud?
'Means of production' here means all the land, machines, architecture, infrastructure and tools used to produce all goods and services.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Billy, what defines your word...GOOD?
He's arguing that his wage ratio idea is simply more ETHICAL than its alternative.
Eh....
This would never pass through congress. also by putting a ratio cap on maximum wage, also by making this change you just cut the income of the wealthiest americans, ruining our tax base.
This would never pass through congress. also by putting a ratio cap on maximum wage, also by making this change you just cut the income of the wealthiest americans, ruining our tax base.
When used as an adjective, as I did in "good idea" it means one that is like to make some improvement in the status quo. For example some improvement in the way fuel was introduced to an IC engine (fuel injectors were better as precise amount needed was added to the cylinder instead of just what the lower pressure sucked in, often not a proper mixture and typically with excess that was not completely oxidized.)
If one is advancing X as "GOOD IDEA" they should have some supporting reason (or have actually shown it to be an improvement on the status quo.)
Both you and SM seem to think that it is more "ETHICAL" to limit the top salaries to 5 times the lowest (or average?) salary, but ethics is a very subjective force, especially when applied to economic considerations. Normally to show that "A" is better than "B" economically one needs to have some sort of "The greatest benefit for the most people of average person" argument, not just an appeal to someone's moral standards, etc.
Apple's CEO, Steve Jobs, is clearly worth more than 100 times the average salary at Apple. (I think his salary is $1/year, but he gets other benefits in stock options, etc.) If his talents were not rewarded, perhaps China would now have Apple and the US would be hundreds of millions of dollars less well off. It is a competitive world and the US would probably stagnate or collapse if other counties could steal away our top decision makers merely by paying them half what they are worth.
While, I admit that some CEOs are grossly over paid in companies losing money, one can not be sure if that it due to their lack of talent or just that the market has changed, etc. Perhaps the company was losing money before they were CEO and they are rapidly reducing the loss rate - turning the company around. I tend to believe that a rigid 5:1 cap would be a disaster for the US (or any other country that applied it) in this competitive world.
Last edited by a moderator:
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I dont agree with SM at all...you may remember that my definition of an ethical transaction is a CONSENSUAL transaction in the context of full disclosure.
His wage ratio idea is a form of coercive price fixing...and I've said more than once that in the real world consensuality always finds a way around coercion.
'The greatest benefit for the largest number'...is an ethical consideration as well, no?
Yes. All decisions have some ethical impacts, but this rule is economically the most beneficial for the society. - Maximizes total wealth productions but quite often is not equal division of wealth. I.e. the idea it to make the pie bigger, even if some get bigger slices than others.
It was Henry Ford's true revolutionary idea - pay the workers well so they can buy the products of mass production which is by far the most economical way to make things. Henry's Idea was not to get a bigger piece of shrinking pie but that everyone gets a bigger piece via the economies of mass production, especially Henry Ford gets a bigger piece that way.
Don't worry, he's just trolling you with libertarian ideals-- which are as bad, if not more so, than the subject of this topic. This world is radically different than the one envisioned by Ayn Rand and the Austrian School.
Economic/fiscal policies must the attempt to balance the contradictory xenophobic and social aspect of mankind, and not just one or the other.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Rand was an objectivist...not a libertarian.
Her economic ideals revolve around self interest.
Libertarian ideals revolve around consensual interest.
Last edited:
Wouldn't it shock you if a majority of workers supported my idea then?
In some places in the world, it might be considered a "good idea" and in the interests of the status quo: Paying people more so they can purchase the products of mass production.
In some places in the world, it might be considered a "good idea" and in the interests of the status quo: Paying people more so they can purchase the products of mass production.
I love your ideas SM, the chasm between rich and poor as well as the dwindling middle class is a result of much wanting more. If your ideas were in place the economy would not be as dynamic (creative or destructive) which is a good thing IMO, the chasm between rich and poor would lessen and it is the fairest way to redistribute wealth, although the threat of the wealthiest people withdrawing from the economy and just drawing interest on their kazillions and buying islands to live with only special people like themselves is real. Most of these people love Ayn Rand and truly believe they are special or at the very least Doing Gods work!
IMHO, this reflects two sad facts about American (and some other societies to a lesser extent):
(1) The idea that the goal of {higher} education is to be able to earn more money.
(2) That Education is expensive, instead of nearly free to serious students who want education for its own sake.
First is failure of the students and second a failure of the society. Many should not spend four years in college - only those you love education or want to acquire skills to serve, like become a doctor. Too little admiration is extended to skilled carpenters, plumbers, auto mechanics, etc.
Part of the reason why US has a "for profit" medical services system, instead of doctors and nurses on salaries as most other advanced nations with socialized medicine do, is the control over the opportunity to enter medical schools (number of school opening far less than number of students wishing to become doctors). The world's most powerful guild / labor union, the AMA, limits their competition from young idealistic doctors who want to serve more than they want to grow rich via medicine. The AMA likes that average doctor in US charges four or five times more than a European doctor does. You cannot open a new medical school in most states, if not all, without the AMA's approval of your staff, procedures, courses, etc. Many countries will give free medical education if you agree to serve several years in some area lacking adequate service.
SUMMARY: Education should be for your personal growth, not a ticket to a high paying job. Instructions for services that require expensive training and are in short supply (to the poor mainly) should have essentially free education if student agrees to server for several years where those services are needed. The US is a "rich nation." - It spends more on wars and military than rest of the world and far more there than it does on education. The US has twice the per capita cost of medical services and 2 to 3 years LOWER life expectancy than other advanced nations with its "for profit" medicine and rich doctors instead of dedicated doctors serving on salaries.
Last edited by a moderator:
To your first point, it doesn't mean that people become doctors to make money. Someone might have no desire to make money, but they just want to heal people. But the reality is, they can't go to school and go several hundred thousand dollars in debt unless they are making a good amount of money later to pay it back. Some people do become doctors for the money, but even the most benevolent selfless person needs to pay for school, and they need to make good money later in life to do it.
To your second, and the part about how we need more skilled trade jobs, this would be made worse by free college education. In many of the scandinavian countries, because college is free, there is a huge shortage of plumbers, carpenters, etc. The people who would have gone into a trade after high school instead went to college and got some language or history or philosophy degree because hey, why not, its paid for. In a system where it is expensive to go to college, only those who really want a higher education will pursue it, and those who are not suited for it who would rather go into a trade will do that.
Personally, I think college is too expensive because of the abundance of student loan programs from the government that allow colleges to charge such exorbitant prices because they know the kids can get a loan and pay for it.
I think medical services are more expensive because of the insurance companies, not the medical system itself. Interesting take on it from John Stossel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI&feature=related
Last edited by a moderator: