What's new

Fairness in Wages

Should there be a cap on CEO salaries?

  • Yes, the government should mandate it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, the free industry should impose it on themselves

    Votes: 3 37.5%
  • No, but wages should be increased voluntarily

    Votes: 4 50.0%
  • No, things are fine the way they are

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Total voters
    8

Keleynal

Jesus Freak
Salary caps are being proposed in some countries to get the highest paid individuals more in parity with the lowest paid ones. In Switzerland, for example, the cap has been set at 12x whatever the lowest level employee makes (Sutter, 2013).

I'm really not sure how I feel about this issue. The freedom-loving, die hard American part wants government as uninvolved in private enterprise as possible, but the compassionate side of me can see that the disparity is pretty ridiculous.

I'd love to see a non-regulatory solution to this. In other words, companies suddenly become more concerned about their employees than seeing how many zeros they can put behind their own salaries. There's no reason I know of why the huge bonuses paid to CEOs could not be reduced just enough to give a significant bonus to each and every employee. My company is really good about paying bonuses to employees, as well as giving us nice Christmas gifts. I realize that it's cheaper than giving everyone a raise, but it does a lot for morale to have earnable bonuses as well as a physical gift.

As far as increasing wages across the board, I don't know enough about running companies to know how viable that really is. I know that minimum wage increases can cause a lot of pain to smaller businesses until the market completely adjusts. Which usually includes raising prices, which once again can trigger a need to raise the minimum wage.

I've seen graphs and charts and statistics from labor unions showing how the compensation for top earners has increased exponentially for the last several years and the bottom wages are barely registering an uptick. I agree that looks out of whack, but does it take into consideration taxes paid as well as money that is reinvested into the business to keep jobs or create more?

Wealthy people tend to want to stay that way and become more wealthy, so they invest. Lower income individuals, even those with disposable income, tend not to save and invest. This is a big reason why they remain lower class, even more so than their pay. So even if wages were increased, spending habits would still have them living paycheck to paycheck unless behaviors changed. But I digress. This is about what top earners can do to help. What people can do to help themselves is fairly obvious.

To sum up, I think top earners are missing an opportunity to meaningfully impact the lives of their employees as well as improve the perception of big business and multimillionaires in general. Many of them are very philanthropic and donate vast sums to charity every year, but perhaps it would be better spent on the hundreds or thousands of employees on their front lines.


Sutter, John. U.S. should copy Switzerland and consider a 'maximum wage' ratio, too. CNN.com. Retrieved from http://us.cnn.com/2013/11/21/opinion/sutter-swiss-executive-pay/?iref=obnetwork December 9, 2013.
 
It´s also a issue with responsibility.
If the lowest worker in your Company makes a bad decision it usually does not turn out horrible. But if the CEO takes the wrong choice the whole company will crumble and this leads to everybody who is lower than him to lose his job as well.
I consider higher wages OK within certain limits. I would go for a limit somewhere around 1 Million bucks. Some might argue that this is actually pretty high, but if you make your company successful, why not?
 
We talked about this in one of my classes recently. My own opinion is that no, government should gtfo out of company affairs that they do not own. They get their taxes, citizens get paid - it's time to move on.

I do realize they are indirectly trying to increase wages all around which I do agree with (most of us are in the area it would actually effect), some other countries are trying to push this as well I heard. This is not an incentive though, this is do what I tell you.
 
It´s also a issue with responsibility.
If the lowest worker in your Company makes a bad decision it usually does not turn out horrible. But if the CEO takes the wrong choice the whole company will crumble and this leads to everybody who is lower than him to lose his job as well.
I consider higher wages OK within certain limits. I would go for a limit somewhere around 1 Million bucks. Some might argue that this is actually pretty high, but if you make your company successful, why not?

I don't think one million is as much as it sounds. Part of the American dream is that there is no ceiling. If you make a way for yourself, there is no limit to your earning potential, and by extension, there's no limit to what you can accomplish or experience. I don't want successful people to hit the salary cap and then become less motivated to grow their business or continue improving. Many of the advances we enjoy today in computers was made because Xerox invested tons of money into R&D. Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Bill Gates all saw what they were doing there and built on top of it. If Xerox had been a small business, they may not have had the money to delve into research that they ultimately made little use of themselves but had a huge impact on society.

Greed (or ambition, if you prefer a more positive term) is a powerful motivator and capitalism harnesses that better than any other economic system I've seen. Socialist systems rely more on altruistic feelings, which unfortunately do not come naturally to many people, especially those in power.
 
I don't think one million is as much as it sounds. Part of the American dream is that there is no ceiling. If you make a way for yourself, there is no limit to your earning potential, and by extension, there's no limit to what you can accomplish or experience. I don't want successful people to hit the salary cap and then become less motivated to grow their business or continue improving. Many of the advances we enjoy today in computers was made because Xerox invested tons of money into R&D. Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Bill Gates all saw what they were doing there and built on top of it. If Xerox had been a small business, they may not have had the money to delve into research that they ultimately made little use of themselves but had a huge impact on society.

Greed (or ambition, if you prefer a more positive term) is a powerful motivator and capitalism harnesses that better than any other economic system I've seen. Socialist systems rely more on altruistic feelings, which unfortunately do not come naturally to many people, especially those in power.

I meant a salary of 1 Million. The amount you can put into your company can be infinite.
 
The chance to sell your company for an absurdly high price?

To someone else who can only make a million a year? That's going to cap the company value. In fact, it could make selling almost impossible if it would take too many years to recoup the price.
 
I will get into a huge in-depth response in a bit when I can fully absorb what the OP is all about. Just glanced quickly and this seems to be right up my alley.
 
To someone else who can only make a million a year? That's going to cap the company value.

The whole idea behind the cap is, that there is a point, where you earn money from "just doing nothing". And then you will try to get as much free time to spend the money to make. If I would earn a billion, I would stop working and just walk around the earth spending it.
 
The whole idea behind the cap is, that there is a point, where you earn money from "just doing nothing". And then you will try to get as much free time to spend the money to make. If I would earn a billion, I would stop working and just walk around the earth spending it.

Do we really want our brightest or most successful people falling into that mindset? What if Bill Gates stopped working and sold off Microsoft as soon as he earned his first billion? Not only would we not have the same level of innovation in PC software, but many people would not have benefited from his philanthropy, which he is famous for.
 
Do we really want our brightest or most successful people falling into that mindset? What if Bill Gates stopped working and sold off Microsoft as soon as he earned his first billion? Not only would we not have the same level of innovation in PC software, but many people would not have benefited from his philanthropy, which he is famous for.

The thing I was saying is what is happening today. How many CEOs do almost nothing and just spend money while they travel the world?
 
The thing I was saying is what is happening today. How many CEOs do almost nothing and just spend money while they travel the world?

Not as many as you'd think. That's actually a pretty demanding job. Once they reach the "do nothing" phase, they are usually in a consultant or "ambassador" role. The perception is that the supervisors/manager/officers in the company don't work as hard as the front line. In a well-run company, the opposite it true.
 
Top Bottom