A regulator fix? | INFJ Forum

A regulator fix?

Chessie

Community Member
Apr 5, 2010
508
198
0
MBTI
INfJ
I had an idea the other day and want to post it. We're facing the greatest income inequality in human history right now and I was wondering if there might be a genuine (eventual) regulatory fix.

Here is my thought. Lock CEO pay to employee pay. Say, at 10 times employee pay. If a CEO wants a raise, he has to give his entire company a raise and he can never make more than ten times what his employees do. If he wants to be super-rich, he has to make his employees super-rich.

Feedback would be lovely.
 
I had an idea the other day and want to post it. We're facing the greatest income inequality in human history right now and I was wondering if there might be a genuine (eventual) regulatory fix.

Here is my thought. Lock CEO pay to employee pay. Say, at 10 times employee pay. If a CEO wants a raise, he has to give his entire company a raise and he can never make more than ten times what his employees do. If he wants to be super-rich, he has to make his employees super-rich.

Feedback would be lovely.

I agree with this. I also think people who make 1 million or more in gross yearly income should be taxed heavily.

I also know that a simply solution will never happen. As to many (Politics) try to make issues like this too complex.
 
The most obvious problem with this idea is that it would strongly encourage companies to fire most of their regular employees and instead contract out to temp agencies to provide cheap workers who would receive far fewer benefits and almost no job security.
 
I had an idea the other day and want to post it. We're facing the greatest income inequality in human history right now

In recent history, yes. Human history, not even close. Consider peasants, slaves, serfs, etc. I'm not at all disagreeing that the inequality in pay isn't a problem, just clarifying.

and I was wondering if there might be a genuine (eventual) regulatory fix.

Here is my thought. Lock CEO pay to employee pay. Say, at 10 times employee pay. If a CEO wants a raise, he has to give his entire company a raise and he can never make more than ten times what his employees do. If he wants to be super-rich, he has to make his employees super-rich.

Feedback would be lovely.

This is a good idea in theory. But there are problems with it (see below).

Also, there is an assumption that when a CEO makes a million dollars a year, it's somehow taking away from the rest of the employees. At $50,000 per year (a professional average-ish salary) a company spends close to $75,000 a year when you include benefits, services, supplies, etc. $1,000,000 equals TWELVE employees. Your model is currently effectively in operation.

When someone's decisions make the difference in literally BILLIONS of dollars each year, I personally see it as fair that this person gets less than 1% of it as a commission to motivate them to continue that degree of success.

I think the biggest problem with million dollar salaries is honestly envy on the part of the rest of us who wish we were making more. I'll be one of the first to step up and say I'm envious of million dollar salaries for what looks to me to be a job that isn't that much more difficult than mine, but then my job isn't affecting BILLIONS of dollars in earning potential.

I like the idea of a system like that more than heavily taxing the rich. It seems kind of arbitrary and unfair to say "You make too much money so we're going to take a big chunk of it away." I'm sure that in the opinion of a lot of impoverished countries, the average American makes "too much money" anyway.

But it's safe to say that a CEO is making too much money when their employees are underpaid in comparison.

Agreed.

The most obvious problem with this idea is that it would strongly encourage companies to fire most of their regular employees and instead contract out to temp agencies to provide cheap workers who would receive far fewer benefits and almost no job security.

And I was going to post almost this exactly in response to the OP.

The reason people in power are in power is because they are willing to manipulate the system to their advantage, even when doing so harms others. Whatever system we put in place, without the will to do "what is right" and be helpful to others, people in power will not be. If they were, they wouldn't be in power long. That's the nature of power. It flows toward takers and away from givers.
 
Last edited:
Pay should correlate with an individual's skill, competence, experience and relative importance to the organization/firm/person of employment. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Pay should correlate with an individual's skill, competence, experience and relative importance to the organization/firm/person of employment. Nothing more, nothing less.

I agree, and it already does for everyone who is employed. The reason things are as they are is because the relative importance of most people as considered by the
 
You dirty commies. Where is Senator McCarthy when we need him?

The salaries of CEOs have grown significantly in the past several decades, and it would be good I think if there was a limit on them. But also I don't see anything of the sort happening. Even in the recession they are taking major bonuses.
 
The most obvious problem with this idea is that it would strongly encourage companies to fire most of their regular employees and instead contract out to temp agencies to provide cheap workers who would receive far fewer benefits and almost no job security.

Exactly.

Just like companies send jobs outside the country because of over regulation by the government.
 
Exactly.

Just like companies send jobs outside the country because of over regulation by the government.

Because it's cheaper to outsource the work as opposed to giving it to Americans, not because of over regulation. Outsourcing is a function of a free market. Many of these jobs are purely labor intensive, not capital or human capital intensive. In other words, they're not jobs you would want to work in America.
 
I had an idea the other day and want to post it. We're facing the greatest income inequality in human history right now and I was wondering if there might be a genuine (eventual) regulatory fix.

Here is my thought. Lock CEO pay to employee pay. Say, at 10 times employee pay. If a CEO wants a raise, he has to give his entire company a raise and he can never make more than ten times what his employees do. If he wants to be super-rich, he has to make his employees super-rich.

Feedback would be lovely.

This would ruin an economy.

All capable CEOs would leave such a country - and probably take most headquarters with them elsewhere.

If somehow this were implemented globally, no one would want the job, because with greater responsibility, comes greater accountability and stress - it is only reasonable that there should be some incentive for people to take these kinds of jobs. If there were little incentive, there would be little responsibility.

It is possible to argue that people be given the job and held accountable with the threat of punishment, but then the existence of companies would no longer serve to improve the standard of people's life - it would be seen as a form of punishment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Detective Conan
Why not just raise the minimum wage in the US to a living wage? I would think that would be less hostile to CEOs than this current proposal. I honestly couldn't care that much about the gap between myself and a CEO so long as I could live a middle class lifestyle (minus the debt and whatnot that others seem to accumulate). Of course, I honestly don't know what kind of repercussions raising the minimum wage could have. For all I know, it'd simply mean that the prices for everything else would inflate so that the ideal living wage would no longer be a living wage.

Of course, this could potentially ruin an economy, too, just as [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] pointed out. CEOs and other rich company fat cats are like five year olds; if they don't like the rules of one sandbox, they'll go to another sandbox, bringing with them their toy trucks, shovels, buckets, and kicking over the sandcastle they were working on on the way out (although in the US, you could probably argue they already kicked over the sandcastle).
 
I had an idea the other day and want to post it. We're facing the greatest income inequality in human history right now and I was wondering if there might be a genuine (eventual) regulatory fix.

Here is my thought. Lock CEO pay to employee pay. Say, at 10 times employee pay. If a CEO wants a raise, he has to give his entire company a raise and he can never make more than ten times what his employees do. If he wants to be super-rich, he has to make his employees super-rich.

Feedback would be lovely.

i doubt its the great inequality of all human history.... for gods sake the Surfs were basically slaves to their nobels and kings... they had nothing, and there was no middle class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jyrffw54
Why not just raise the minimum wage in the US to a living wage? I would think that would be less hostile to CEOs than this current proposal. I honestly couldn't care that much about the gap between myself and a CEO so long as I could live a middle class lifestyle (minus the debt and whatnot that others seem to accumulate). Of course, I honestly don't know what kind of repercussions raising the minimum wage could have. For all I know, it'd simply mean that the prices for everything else would inflate so that the ideal living wage would no longer be a living wage.

Of course, this could potentially ruin an economy, too, just as [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] pointed out. CEOs and other rich company fat cats are like five year olds; if they don't like the rules of one sandbox, they'll go to another sandbox, bringing with them their toy trucks, shovels, buckets, and kicking over the sandcastle they were working on on the way out (although in the US, you could probably argue they already kicked over the sandcastle).

They did raise the minimum wage, when Obama got in... and prices have been going up ever since. Tax the companies like that and they pass the costs on to the consumer. Do you like paying 6 dollars for a gallon of milk? 4 dollars for a half pound of cheese? you cant even feed a family on 150 bucks a week anymore for fucks sake. And everyone is to over worked trying to keep up with costs spiraling out of control to effecitvel budget and plan meals for a week or a month in advance and then have enough energy to cook them, and package the leftovers to extend the money...

so is it no wonder we are getting fatter and turning to convenience like McDonalds which can feed dinner to a family for 10 bucks a night and you never have to get out of your car? Is it a coincidence that when the economy turns to shit and people are broke and busted that mcDonalds revenue goes off the chart and supermarkets suffer?
 
I had an idea the other day and want to post it. We're facing the greatest income inequality in human history right now and I was wondering if there might be a genuine (eventual) regulatory fix.

Here is my thought. Lock CEO pay to employee pay. Say, at 10 times employee pay. If a CEO wants a raise, he has to give his entire company a raise and he can never make more than ten times what his employees do. If he wants to be super-rich, he has to make his employees super-rich.

Feedback would be lovely.

You're not the first person I've heard suggest this. I like the idea. Unfortunately it will never happen.
 
You're not the first person I've heard suggest this. I like the idea. Unfortunately it will never happen.

Thank god... who wants to live in a communist country? If a CEO is responsible for millions of dollars of money, man power, and resources, he should have an incentive to be the best.
 
They did raise the minimum wage, when Obama got in... and prices have been going up ever since.

Other than the time frame, can you provide substantial proof to support this? It's illogical to assume that because X occurred after Y that Y caused X to occur. If you can prove that the minimum wage increase is the sole cause of the increasing prices, then you have a point that I'll have to acknowledge.

Tax the companies like that and they pass the costs on to the consumer. Do you like paying 6 dollars for a gallon of milk? 4 dollars for a half pound of cheese? you cant even feed a family on 150 bucks a week anymore for fucks sake. And everyone is to over worked trying to keep up with costs spiraling out of control to effecitvel budget and plan meals for a week or a month in advance and then have enough energy to cook them, and package the leftovers to extend the money...

Bolded the loaded questions. Of course no one likes to pay that much for food. Fuck, I'd rather pay nothing at all for nutritional substance.

Also, I disagree with the first statement in some cases. It seems to me that whenever a company increases a price for something (you see this more or less with oil companies) that they make profits that are higher than they were before. That causes me to question the reasons for raising the price in the first place. In regard to food, I don't think that the minimum wage or other taxes on companies are nearly as influential on the cost of product as is the demand and availability of such a product. When you have a lot more mouths to feed, you'll need to invest more to feed them, and that cost is passed down to the consumer. If there weren't so many of us, things might be different. They might not. I, for one, am incapable of judging the mindset of the people that determine how much these things cost; things might be the same if we had a smaller population.
 
I love your idealism, Chessie. I doubt many companies would give all employees a raise in line with managerial raises though. As a compromise, it would be good if the amount the CEO raises their salary by is matched with a cash lump sum of the same amount, which is then divided amongst all employees as a bonus. I'm all for non hierarchical work structures, so ideally, this would be split equally, but in a traditional work hierachy, it could also be tired and cascaded down, so everyone gets an amount relative to status in the hierarchy. Either way, the whole company is rewarded for perceived success, and not just the boss.
 
Other than the time frame, can you provide substantial proof to support this? It's illogical to assume that because X occurred after Y that Y caused X to occur. If you can prove that the minimum wage increase is the sole cause of the increasing prices, then you have a point that I'll have to acknowledge.



Bolded the loaded questions. Of course no one likes to pay that much for food. Fuck, I'd rather pay nothing at all for nutritional substance.

Also, I disagree with the first statement in some cases. It seems to me that whenever a company increases a price for something (you see this more or less with oil companies) that they make profits that are higher than they were before. That causes me to question the reasons for raising the price in the first place. In regard to food, I don't think that the minimum wage or other taxes on companies are nearly as influential on the cost of product as is the demand and availability of such a product. When you have a lot more mouths to feed, you'll need to invest more to feed them, and that cost is passed down to the consumer. If there weren't so many of us, things might be different. They might not. I, for one, am incapable of judging the mindset of the people that determine how much these things cost; things might be the same if we had a smaller population.

Its simple, for the same reason Online banks can give you a higher interest yield, no brick and mortar to keep up.

Grocery stores have always been minimum wage employers, my 1st job was at Stop and Shop for 5.25 an hour about 12 years ago.

You raise the minimum wage, their man-hours go up, they in turn have to get that money back somewhere. They increase prices in turn. This is the basics of the economy. Taxes on Gas do the same thing, it simply gets passed on.
 
Its simple, for the same reason Online banks can give you a higher interest yield, no brick and mortar to keep up.

Grocery stores have always been minimum wage employers, my 1st job was at Stop and Shop for 5.25 an hour about 12 years ago.

You raise the minimum wage, their man-hours go up, they in turn have to get that money back somewhere. They increase prices in turn. This is the basics of the economy. Taxes on Gas do the same thing, it simply gets passed on.

That makes sense. But how do you explain the rising profits of such companies? If they didn't fluctuate much, I wouldn't really care, but the fact that they are on the rise makes me wonder how many of these price increases are to compensate for government-imposed fees. And, also, if these price increases are due to the increased minimum wage, why, after 2 years, have they not leveled off?

For clarification, I'm not using the term profit to substitute revenue. Profit, as used in this post, refers to the difference between revenue and the costs required to maintain a company.
 
I had an idea the other day and want to post it. We're facing the greatest income inequality in human history right now and I was wondering if there might be a genuine (eventual) regulatory fix.

Here is my thought. Lock CEO pay to employee pay. Say, at 10 times employee pay. If a CEO wants a raise, he has to give his entire company a raise and he can never make more than ten times what his employees do. If he wants to be super-rich, he has to make his employees super-rich.

Feedback would be lovely.

I absolutely think that pay ratios would be fantastic, I totally agree with that idea, I know of two attempts to realise it in the UK, both of which went entirely disasterously though.

In the public services and utilities (which were privatised and the whole idea was abandoned among those which still survive) the unions negotiated pay deals which involved rises among the least reflecting rises within the organisation as a whole, although they did it on percentages instead of real income and anyone who knows the story of the rich man in the temple from the bible knows that a certain percentage to someone who is earning a lot wont matter the same as someone earning a little. It didnt result in the rising tide raising all boats. It also meant that when resources were scarce that public services bosses were happy to sack employees, sometimes vital ones, and award themselves pay rises.

The other big move was debates about incomes policies, these took place before Thatcher-Reagan smashed the liberal consensus, the idea was that private and not just public services should be subject to pay ratios, that there should be a maximum income aswell as minimum wage, the arguments were made on pretty sound statistics and reasoning about the extent to which the economy was objectively mixed and taxes assisted or provided the profits of small and independent enterprise anyway. In the end it was abandoned because it was judged that the expense in assessment, statistical evaluations, law reform and maintaining it would out weigh the potential benefits.

I still think pay ratios are a very good idea, especially when the evidence is in that highly paid reckless individuals can wreck single agencies, ie Enron, or entire economic systems, ie Goldman-Sachs, without any regard for the cost in jobs and lives. Its something I think that shareholders should insist on but unless it was industry wide, and now globally, adopted there'd be a lot of rich people jumping ship to try and avoid it.