My sole point in this thread is that the gap in income between CEOs and employees is detrimental to the system in the long run. one solution to just that one facet of income gaps is a cap on CEO salaries, and the mors reasonable way to cap those salaries as I see it is to utilize a percentage of the average employee's salary to set the cap. This is not about communism, it's not about global poverty, it has nothing to do with how priveledged the first world is in comparison to the third world, it is solely about the difference in income between a CEO and the average employee.
Maybe it's because it's late or I just have zoned out, but I have to admit I don't get it. How is it detrimental to the system in the long-run given that the wealthiest individuals in America are not made up of CEO's but the investors - those who hold majority shares in the corporations themselves(the owners)? These are the indidvuals that hold most of the wealth in the nation, not the CEO of a corporation. These guys could buy a CEO 100 times over. A CEO is simply an officer appointed by the Board of Directors and shareholders to take responsibility for the financial condition of the corporation. Most of them are millionaires. Very few are billionaires.
You are saying this is all about the difference in salary between CEO and employee but you also have to consider the salary of the Board of Directors themselves, the other officers below the CEO, the CFO, the CCO, the head Accountant, the Lead attorney, etc etc. The CEO salary pales in comparison to the total of all these individuals together. You will have to lower their salaries as well.
We can debate back and forth but there are no simple and practical solutions to income disparity. Adjusting the salary of a CEO is not going to do much of anything except offer a feel-good measure to fool people into believing the income gap between rich and poor has actually decreased. Most of the profit and wealth in America will still reside with the majority shareholders themselves. There are only so many CEO's and most are millionaires, not the billionaire investors who hold large positions. The Obsession with playing with CEO salaries to bring about ay real change in the actual income dispairty that exists is puzzling.
It's compeltely feasible without affecting the bottom line at all, and it also has the added benefit of increasing employee morale and production. Don't let those idiotic HR drones fool you - the best way to make an emloyee happy is not to make them feel important, but rather to compensate him appropriately. When the employees are able to feel a real benefit from improving profits instead of all of that money being given to a single individual, they will be far happeier and better motivated.
Lowering the salary of the bank employee who has the title of CEO will not increase the salary of the rank and file. As stated yourself, if you do increase the salary to be a percentage of the CEO based on a pre-determined calculation, the result is not likely going to be a windfall that shoots people into different tax brackets. Would it immediately increase morale? yes. Will it increase production? Will employees suddenly feel the desire to work twice as hard and twice as fast? I don't think so.
You can hardly decry human greed when human greed is the very basis of the capitalist system.
But that's the point - we are all greedy. The desire to want more is what motivates us all - corporation as well as individual. We simply just tend to look at the wealthy as the cause of all the ills. Our greed as consumers to obtain things we don't need is what motivates the entire system and keeps it alive. In this sense, we are just as guilty as those who control the production. That was the whole point of my diversion. As I said, if you really want to make a difference, everyone STOP being greedy and hoarding things we do not need. We are ALL greedy. Those in glass houses .....
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.