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

[artemis44.livejournal.com]

Seriously? You think someone doing unskilled labor should make $50K-$100K a year, just because the compay they work for can afford to pay it, while a genius architect with like 20 years experience who is visionary but works for a less profitable firm makes the same amount? I can easily see that happening under your plan, and well... yes, I do think the skilled, educated, and innovative architect deserves to make more than the envelope stuffer (or the janitor or the receptionist or a whole host of other people), no matter what firm they work for.

I just think that tying salaries SO completely to company profitability (as opposed to the loose link they already have), throws the whole "career path" thing out of whack! It's not fair to workers who pursue education, who are leaders, who have ideas and drive innovation, to have the idiot who's smacking gum while answering the phones make the same pay, all because of some artificial floor put in place by the CEO who doesn't want to give up their pay.

And what about the people under the CEO - are there stuctures in place there too? So the 3 vice presidents under the CEO stay there long enough and get enough raises to make the same amount as the CEO adn they all sit there making the same pay? Or do they have their own cap and as soon as they hit it they're looking to move to another, more profitable/bigger firm with a better paid CEO so they can have some room to maneuver.

I don't want to work in an environment where my pay is so heavily influenced by an artificial floor/ceiling structure - I expect a reasonably similar amount of pay no matter who I work for - as do you, I imagine. How would it affect your job choices if you were offered dramatically different rates of pay for different firms? Because there would be an impact on everyone's salaries, as the whole range would have to be adjusted to accomodate the new structure.

Anyways, why I'm worrying about this when I have to go actually earn my pay so I don't become an envelope stuffer is beyond me... interesting stuff, though - sort of an Ideals/Reality clash for me, I suppose.

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

I can easily see that happening under your plan, and well... yes, I do think the skilled, educated, and innovative architect deserves to make more than the envelope stuffer (or the janitor or the receptionist or a whole host of other people), no matter what firm they work for.

And they will. CEOs who try to pay everyone under them the same flat salary will soon find their talent going to other companies.

And what about the people under the CEO

No-one said the CEO had to make the most. It applies to everyone in the company. The highest paid can make no more than 100 times the lowest paid. That's a HUGE range. Except for very large companies I think you'll find most people fall into that as it stands now.

How would it affect your job choices if you were offered dramatically different rates of pay for different firms?

I don't think it'd be all that dramatic. Larger companies make more, but have more employees and/or costs. If you're making $80K at one company where the top earner is making 2 million and the bottom earner is making $20K and you switch to a company where the top earner is a 4 million and the bottom at 40k, why would your 80k switch that much?

[artemis44.livejournal.com]

but let's say that a certain type of employee - a janitor, or a bathroom attendant, or a cafeteria worker - the lowest paid employee at all these various firms - her salary now is jumping around by tens of thousands based on where she works! I mean, sure there's some variation, but under your plan a more profitable company who *can* afford to pay more, would *have* to pay her more in order to allow the upper ranks the room to increase their salaries, which is the only way their upper ranks (the people who are actually makign the money in the first place), will stay there. So even though she's sweeping the same floors the same way, she gets paid double at company X?

So maybe my 80X doesn't shift that much, but the bottom earner's pay sure does...

And I do believe that my pay would shift - because I fall somewhere on a compensation line, and if that line is compressed or expanded or moved left or right, my pay will too.

But then, you don't have a problem with the envelope stuffer makign $50K (which I am strongly against - a living wage, yes, but more than a mid-level manager/executive/nonprofit manager? no)

[lynxreign.livejournal.com]

which is the only way their upper ranks (the people who are actually makign the money in the first place), will stay there.

1) Why is that the only way they'd stay there? Where else will they go?

2) I think you're mistaken over who is actually making the money. We're talking caps of MILLIONS of dollars a year. Less than .1% of employees make this much. The people actually making the money will likely get raises as well as the top 1 or 2 people at a company are forced to share more equitably.