I would like a law

[lynxreign]

It is a simple law.

No employee of any company at any level can make more than 100 times the lowest paid employee of that company.

You're paying someone $20,000 a year, then you can make 2 million a year. Want a raise? You have to raise the salaries of the lowest paid employees.

Now, tell me why you don't like my law.

Comments

[whiskeyjack.livejournal.com]

I don't know that there would be much of an effective difference between a 90% tax bracket and your 100x scenario. I must admit that I haven't given it a lot of thought. I was roughly thinking that if there is a max spread of salaries it doesn't really matter if the spread goes from $10K to $1000K or $20K to $2000K because the companies would tend to stabilize around the same numbers as each other anyway == an effective national minimum wage. Again - I haven't given it a lot of thought.

I will take exception to the "communism will evolve idea" -- there is no reason why it would. Thinking that it's a 'goal' of evolution implies a Guiding Hand. Evolution has no goal and most species go extinct.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

The difference is that CEOs will want to make as much as they can. This lets them do that, but forces them to share. The extra money goes to employees, not the government. Also, there's research that shows people are more willing to defer theoretical future earnings than they are to support a tax cut. I think this falls under that kind of thinking.

I didn't say communism WILL evolve, I said that if it does, it won't get here through revolution.

[head58.livejournal.com]

So the CEO of S-Mart sets his salary at $1/year and just rakes in benefits and bonus payments etc. totaling to fifty billion dollars. Whatever we can think of, others will find/finagle loopholes to exploit and ruin it.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

benefits and bonus payments etc

Counts as part of your yearly compensation.

[jestermotley.livejournal.com]

If benefits and bonus payments count as part of yearly earnings then this gets even worse.

You'll have companies claiming access to work machines, office supplies, parking, etc will all become "benefits".

So now that guy making nothing in data entry looks like he's making a ton more because you could even go as crazy far as to claim his cubicle space a benefit. So you write rent off too.

Like I said before this idea is nice, but the level of detail that'd have to go into closing all the potential loopholes is insane.

Because I'm sitting here constantly coming up with new little ideas. So you KNOW bigtime CEOs would have even more to say about it.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

You'll have companies claiming access to work machines, office supplies, parking, etc will all become "benefits".

I don't think that'd last long in the realm of the marketplace or in the courts. And it is a fairly simple loophole to close anyway. I don't think the level of detail to close the loopholes is all that bad when compared with some other legislation out there.

[jestermotley.livejournal.com]

But it would, because you'd have huge arguments over what CEOs REQUIRE. If they have to fly all over for meetings and mergers what's acceptable. Hotel rates, food, per diem, etc.

That's asking for a lot of regulation that has to be malleable enough to change with inflation rates. Its just a big issue.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

Those are business expenses paid for by the company, just as they are now. They aren't benefits any more than parking spaces are.

Nothing has to change with inflation rate. That's built in. All it requres is that the lowest paid person make no more than 1/100th the highest paid person.

And we're talking about salaries of millions of dollars a year here. And we're talking about perhaps .1% of the population. Everyone else gets a raise.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

And actually, I think the only way for it to get here is through slow processes with no guiding hand. That's partly why revolution fails to achieve it.

[whiskeyjack.livejournal.com]

I should have said "Invisible Guiding Hand" - that's really what I have a problem with. So while a revolution may fail it doesn't require the kind of magical thinking I had in mind. Examples of Invisible Guiding Hand: the Start Trek/sci fi idea that we are evolving toward 'beings of pure energy" or really that we are evolving 'toward' anything. Or Marx's idea that Communism is an inevitable step after Capitalism. (If I am mis-representing Marx someone can correct me.)

I think that what you are saying is that you think there needs to be smaller incremental steps. But as you said, if it isn't dictated by law, it isn't going to happen. I would consider your proposed law a step in that direction. (A teeny tiny baby step - I also don't want to sound like a pundit who screams Socialism! Communist! every time something progressive is suggested.)

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

Communism is the step after several stages of socialism which are after several stages of capitalism. According to Marx.
And again, I'm not saying it is inevitable, just that if it does happen it'll be the result of a long, slow process. It could just as easily not happen and something else will result out of a long, slow process, even if that "something else" is just what we have now: stasis.
My proposed law isn't towards any intended goal other than a more equitable society. And it would be in conjuction with a number of other laws.