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

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

Good point, aren't there CEO's making $1/year? So now nobody else can make more than $100/year under Lynx's law? :)

In that company, yes. However, with this law, that would never happen. Why are they working for $1 a year? Because that doesn't matter to them. They've already made hundreds of millions at their companies and are still getting their enormous incentive packages. Those bonuses would count toward their yearly income and would thus mean they're not really making $1 a year.

[chaoticmoth.livejournal.com]

So here is a question along a different path:

How would you implement this law without voiding legal agreements in place on pay? You could banrupt companies that suddenly had to boost everyone's salaries because they are contractually obligated to pay some higher levels high salaries.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

You have a short transition period of a few years. Some of those agreements will lapse and others will be forced to renegotiate those contracts. Or you force them to renegotiate immediately. Again, I don't think it'll affect as many people as you think.

Again, I don't think it'll affect as many people as you think.

[chaoticmoth.livejournal.com]

I don't think you realize how many low-paid employees there are. The minimum wage is set to increase to $7.25/hour this July. At 40 hours/week, 52 weeks/year, that is $15,080/year. Any company paying someone minimum wage would have to redo the salaries of everyone making 1.5 million/year or greater.

Shall we discuss sports franchises?

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

Yep, and that's fine. They'd also raise the salaries of all those people as much as they could so they wouldn't have to cut the people at the top as much.

Only 1.5% of people make over 250,000 a year. Over 1.5 million a year? I'd be surprised if it is .5% You'd likely only see .1% of earners needing a revision downward.

You'd likely only see .1% of earners needing a revision downward

[chaoticmoth.livejournal.com]

But then giving them an increase doesn't work out (I just posted a separate example) if they work for a large company.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

Sure it does, it just makes it harder for the top earners to increase by much quickly in large companies. Perhaps it would result in more small companies. That's not necessarily a bad thing. You'll never convince me something is bad because it is bad for WalMart.

You'll never convince me something is bad because it is bad for WalMart.

[chaoticmoth.livejournal.com]

Just because you don't like WalMart doesn't mean the math lies when it comes to showing how hard it would be to give a small increase to a top earner.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying it does. I'm saying the fault there lies in assuming the top earner needs more than a small increase.
I'm also saying WalMart is a horrible company tha treats its employees, customers and communities like shit.

I'm also saying horrible company tha treats its employees, customers and communities like shit.

[chaoticmoth.livejournal.com]

And yet they are one of the most successful companies around. Why? Because they provide their products at a lower price, benefiting everyone who shops there and saves money. And why do people work for them? Because they provide jobs. And why do communities allow them in? Because they provide tax revenue.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

Except that these are all examples of short-term thinking.

Communities allow them in becuse they'd have to perform amazing legal tricks to keep them out.
Wal-Mart runs other businesses out, damaging both the community and the tax-base.

Why do people work for them? Because a job is better than no job, much of the time, and WalMart has eliminated most other jobs in the community at that level.
Wal-Mart provides substandard jobs and eliminates competing jobs, harming the employees. Not every job is a GOOD job.

They provide lower prices, but at the cost of community and their employees who would be better off paying a little more while earning more.

They're successful because they've managed to screw everyone from suppliers to employees to communities all in the goal of the highest profit for the CEOs.

[artemis44.livejournal.com]

And those are all the ways that companies will "become more profitable" as your plan would have them do - if they can't squeeze lower-income-earners, they'll screw us somewhere else - outsourcing, child labor in foreign countries, melamine, etc. You can't squeeze a corrupt system in one place and not expect the corruption to just ooze somewhere else.