The Driving Force Behind Wages:
If you want to get paid a lot, have a
rare skill that other people are willing to pay for. The important thing is that your skill be
rare.
Kobe Bryant and LeBron James got paid $18 million and $28 million respectively in salary. Why? Because they can put a basketball into a hoop (etc.) like
nobody else can.
Why does the lady who cleans my office get paid minimum wage? Because
everybody can do her job. The janitors of this world impact my quality of life far more than the sports stars, but they can be replaced by
anyone. And that's why they get paid the least.
CEOs vs. Sports Stars / A-List Celebrities:
Most of the comments on this thread are aimed at the CEOs, not at the top athletes and celebrities. For some reason, people get offended at a CEO earning the same (or more) as a top actor/singer/sports star.
To me, that seems odd. Those people entertain us, which we see as valuable. The top CEOs can turn around the fortunes of billion dollar companies which employ tens of thousands of people, bring us innovative products, and can help these companies remain innovative and economic powerhouses.
Maximum Wage:
If you think about it, this is like a 100% tax on all income over a certain level (let's say $5 million/year, just to keep it simple).
If you were capable of earning $25 million per year, and you had the option of staying in the U.S. (and losing everything over $5 million) or moving to another country and earning the money there, which would
you choose?
We already know that wealthy people often relocate from countries with high income tax to countries with lower income tax. If you put a maximum wage on them, they'll do it faster. It's possible that they'll relocate faster.
On the other hand, the U.S. currently benefits from a problem that affects many third-world countries: brain drain. We offer
higher wages than most of those countries. So when those countries try to improve their lot (by investing in the education of budding scientists, engineers, physicians, etc.), many of those professionals relocate to the U.S. ... where they will earn far more than in their home countries.
China and India have lost a lot of skilled, highly-educated professionals to the U.S. over the years.
Maximum Wage Ratio:
As Revoltingest said, this is easier to work around. Fire the janitors and secretaries. Then contract out your janitorial/secretarial service from a small company. The small company has to maintain the top to bottom ratio, but the wealthier company has just removed the entire bottom portion of their payroll.
This is ridiculously easy to work around.
My company practically does this already, just for convenience.
Tariffs and Economic Sanctions:
When you put a tariff (or import/export tax) onto goods, you limit the flow of those goods (or goods in general) in and out of this country.
When the U.S. wants to punish a country (like Iran or North Korea), what do they do? They use economic sanctions to limit the flow of goods into and out of those countries. And if you look at the economies of Iran and North Korea, they're really in
horrible shape.
By placing heavy import/export taxes on goods, you're really hurting our country's economy as a whole.
Why do governments place import/export taxes on goods?
If the U.S. places heavy taxes on citrus fruits, it will hurt the U.S. economy as a whole. (Not a lot, but a little.) But it will help the U.S. citrus growers ... a lot. It will help them far more than it will hurt the rest of us. Therefore, they lobby the government to place import/export taxes on foreign citrus ... to line their own pockets.
Collectively, the country benefits from free trade. That's not much of a comfort to the individuals who lose their jobs overseas (and I support measures to help them retrain into new jobs), but crippling our own economy by trying to force us out of the global economy ... that's just going to hurt
everyone.
I don't think the "unintended consequences" would be that difficult to stop.
This has to be the most hilarious statement in the entire thread.
In 1920, the U.S. passed laws forbidding the manufacture, sale and transport of alcohol. They did this to prevent drunkenness and promote a safe, sober and law-abiding society.
Thus began the rise of organized crime in America. One big unintended consequence.
Prohibition was repealed in 1933.
Organized crime is still here.
Apex,
If unintended consequences are easy to stop, why don't you come up with a solution to organized crime.
I think the minimum wage should be nullified. Let each company pay as it wishes. Each employee can seek employment as they wish. If the wage is too low, they can go elsewhere. Or start their own business.
And this is the second most naïve statement in the thread.
Minimum wage workers don't
have options. If they had the skills to get a better job, they'd already be working at a different job. If they had the money to move to a city where the economy is booming, they would have moved already.
Minimum wage is a poverty level existence (this varies with the number of hours you work and the number of dependents you have). It doesn't give you options. You have food to eat, but not the option to eat nutritious food. You can afford a cheap apartment, but you can't afford one in a safe neighborhood, or a neighborhood with good schools.
I've lived near the bottom end of the wage scale for a few years. I was able to get out of that existence, but only because I had advantages that most minimum wage earners don't have: a good education from pre-K on up.
If you're serious about changing the world for the poor:
Promote education for
everyone. Start with pre-K education, since it turns out that has a huge impact. Provide adequate nutrition to children, since that also has a huge impact on their mental capabilities later in life.
In addition to helping the poor, this will help the economy as a whole. Every top economy has an educated workforce. China and India are moving up because they've improved the education of their workforce.
It won't change the world today, but it will change the next few generations.