I would like a law
Apr. 9th, 2009 09:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lynxreignIt 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: There are only 456 CEOs that would be affected at current minium wage
Date: 2009-04-09 03:33 pm (UTC)And we're still talking about millions of dollars a year here, that's not chump change.
They can still get increases, but more reasonable ones.
Date: 2009-04-09 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 03:40 pm (UTC)This is Capitalism unleashed, baby!
Date: 2009-04-09 03:44 pm (UTC)I think either capitalism or unleashed does not mean what you think it means. :)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 03:51 pm (UTC)Unfettered Capitalism doesn't work, we've seen that. Properly regulated Capitalism can work, we've seen that too. This is just one more regulation, removing the fetters of gaming the system.
Again, the only limit on what you can make as an individual is what profitability you can afford you
Date: 2009-04-09 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 04:00 pm (UTC)Whatever is justified by the profitability of the company.
Date: 2009-04-09 03:48 pm (UTC)Yep, I see how this economic model will work flawlessly.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 03:53 pm (UTC)How is that different from today?
Date: 2009-04-09 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 04:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 03:55 pm (UTC)And you're calculating with today's economy. In this economy, more people will have more disposable income allowing them to spend more without going into debt. This increases profitability and will allow the CEOs to make more an give raises. A virtuous spiral.
Will it work "flawlessly"? Probably not. Will it work with fewer flaws than the current system? I'd bet on it.
And again, you're arguing over the fate of a few hundred people who will still be making millions of
Date: 2009-04-09 03:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 04:02 pm (UTC)We tax, we regulate, we fine, we imprison
Date: 2009-04-09 04:14 pm (UTC)Regulate - Regulations are part of what got us in the CEO compensation mess to begin with. http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14749943
Fines - We fine for breaking rules, not for paying people.
Imprison - See Fines, with the exception of bribes and such as far as for paying people. :)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 04:22 pm (UTC)Regulations can be for good or ill, properly composed ones benefit us as a society.
Fines: Where do you think the rules come from?
Imprison, so you agree that we imprison people for certain types of payments? Good. Then extend to this.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 04:33 pm (UTC)It does because the economy of scale sets in. It gets too expensive to pay everyone else just to pay one. I know you are against big companies, but not all big companies are evil.
Regulations can be for good or ill, properly composed ones benefit us as a society.
True, yet we can't seem to get it right.
Fines: Where do you think the rules come from? There is a difference between a fine, and a limit on compensation. And contrary to your argument that you are not limiting compensation, you are.
Imprison, so you agree that we imprison people for certain types of payments? Good. Then extend to this.
Which is part of what I think is why people object to this. You are going to make it criminal to pay someone more than 100 times someone else in the company, even if it is warranted and deserved.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 04:36 pm (UTC)I'm not against big companies. They may be a casualty of this law, but I don't see that they have to be or that that would necessarily be a bad thing. And it isn't too expensive to pay everyone else to just pay one. It is too expensive to pay one too much.
Which is part of what I think is why people object to this. You are going to make it criminal to pay someone more than 100 times someone else in the company, even if it is warranted and deserved.
Nope, not criminal. They wouldn't go to jail, just pay fines making up the difference.
And I can't think of any way it would be warranted and deserved. That's part of the point of the law.
Nope, not criminal. They wouldn't go to jail, just pay fines making up the difference.
Date: 2009-04-09 04:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 05:01 pm (UTC)The payee is fined $500,000 and the company is fined an amount either tied to earnings or the employ
Date: 2009-04-09 05:25 pm (UTC)Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Unleahed: turned loose or freed from restraint
no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 05:31 pm (UTC)I'd argue that my system better fits the definition of Capitalism you posted than what we have now. Besides, nowhere in your definition is compensation mentioned.
I'd argue that my system better fits the definition of Capitalism you posted than what we have now.
Date: 2009-04-09 06:00 pm (UTC)Free Market: An economic market in which supply and demand are not regulated or are regulated with only minor restrictions.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-09 06:15 pm (UTC)Well, we've seen that the Free Market doesn't work then. So why keep it?
Date: 2009-04-09 06:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:"Pure" capitalism? No. It doesn't work. Well regulated capitalism? Sure.
From:(no subject)
From:Giving people the freedom to make 100 times a co-worker?
From:(no subject)
From:While you technically have that freedom you'll never be able to take advantage of it.
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:and the people who have a lot to lose jump in as well and get crushed when it all comes tumbling dow
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Oh, and let me know when you come up against that limit. We'll go out and celebrate. On you, of cour
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:That is if you continue to see it as a "freedom being taken away" instead of what it actually is, a
From:(no subject)
From: