Should there be a salary cap?

[Revoltingest]

So still no arguments as to why there shouldn't be a pay ratio inside public corporations?

Cuz it ain't none of the gubmint's bizness.
There would be unanticipated consequences.
The lowest wage workers will be fired, & replaced by machines & outside contractors.
If the stockholders don't like things, they can vote for a change.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you only want others to cap their salaries?

As long as that is necessary to avoid the depths of social gulf that we currently have? Sure.

It is not morally defensible to purposely remain in a course that leads to ever-increasing social disparities.

 

[Revoltingest]

As long as that is necessary to avoid the depths of social gulf that we currently have? Sure.
It is not morally defensible to purposely remain in a course that leads to ever-increasing social disparities.

Even so, it's easy to want salary caps imposed upon someone else.
But if you worked hard to get there, only to find that you can't earn
any more than you do, it would be a life changing perspective.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even so, it's easy to want salary caps imposed upon someone else.

Yep. It truly is.

Does it follow that I shouldn't do it? If so, why?

But if you worked hard to get there, only to find that you can't earn
any more than you do, it would be a life changing perspective.

I must assume that it indeed is. There is plenty of evidence pointing that way.

All the same, the consequences of our current levels of disparity are not to be tolerated.

 

[dust1n]

How exactly would that work with massive corporations that do almost everything?

They may be involved in a section with relatively low average wages and a completely unrelated part of the business might do something where wages are substantially higher. If they were competing with a companies that only operated in one of these two areas they would be at a huge disadvantage as they would either have to pay the staff well above the average wage for that type of job, which would likely make them noncompetitive, or they would have to substantially reduce the wages in the other section which would mean they wouldn't be able to attract people with the skills they need.

Edit: What sort of pay ratio are you talking about here?

Lowset wage:highest wage limit.

If your lowest paid worker is paid at $17,160 (or adjusted for part-time, available benefits, cost of benefits, etc.) after 90 days of employment, than the proportion should be no more than 1:300. That would be slightly over 5 million annually. If they hire in multiple countries, like McDonald's for instance, than the lowest amount would be determined based relative to the countries everyone resides in. If they want high salaries, employees must be paid more first. If they don't want to pay employees more first, then they can reinvest it.

 

[dust1n]

Cuz it ain't none of the gubmint's bizness.
There would be unanticipated consequences.
The lowest wage workers will be fired, & replaced by machines & outside contractors.

Well, I certainly wouldn't set up a plan blindly. It would obviously be based on a more thorough analysis, simulations ran, studies done, adjustments made...

Thanks for reminding me though! When I say "lowest paid worker" I mean that to include any suppliers', or manufacturers' employees too.

I don't mind people being replaced by machines. As you know, I believe in free higher education, incentives for training, generally and more leniency towards public benefits for people. I don't think technology should be stifled because our society has been too lazy to address educational issues in the country.

If the stockholders don't like things, they can vote for a change.

If there was something that guaranteed workers stock in a company, or at least a weighted vote as if it was stock, then I wouldn't say how this attitude is the general sentiment of the population, to completely ignore the issue of working people.

 

[dust1n]

Even so, it's easy to want salary caps imposed upon someone else.
But if you worked hard to get there, only to find that you can't earn
any more than you do, it would be a life changing perspective.

I imagine that's how Rockefeller felt during antitrust legislation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I imagine that's how Rockefeller felt during antitrust legislation.

He & a few others!

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I certainly wouldn't set up a plan blindly. It would obviously be based on a more thorough analysis, simulations ran, studies done, adjustments made...

Thanks for reminding me though! When I say "lowest paid worker" I mean that to include any suppliers', or manufacturers' employees too.

Of course, the firing of low pay workers would ripple all the way down the supply chain.

I don't mind people being replaced by machines. As you know, I believe in free higher education, incentives for training, generally and more leniency towards public benefits for people. I don't think technology should be stifled because our society has been too lazy to address educational issues in the country.

But if low wage jobs are eliminated, what will they do for a living? No large company, or smaller one which supplied a larger
one would higher them, lest the top wage earners have their pay cut. The country's future already seems headed in a
direction of a permanently unemployable class. This scheme would exacerbate the problem.

If there was something that guaranteed workers stock in a company, or at least a weighted vote as if it was stock, then I wouldn't say how this attitude is the general sentiment of the population, to completely ignore the issue of working people.

This is a whole lotta micro-regulation you're proposing.
The consequences would be obvious to no one who favors such bureaucratic meddling.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Of course, the firing of low pay workers would ripple all the way down the supply chain.

But if low wage jobs are eliminated, what will they do for a living? No large company, or smaller one which supplied a larger
one would higher them, lest the top wage earners have their pay cut. The country's future already seems headed in a
direction of a permanently unemployable class. This scheme would exacerbate the problem.

How did we manage when we stopped needing lamplighters, switchboard operators, or the Pony Express?

 

[LuisDantas]

Low pay workers are hardly in a secure or promising position in the first place. You are right, Revoltingest, in that their situation is a major factor of economic concern.

Actually, that it is at all possible to be a honest worker that earns one hundredth or less of the hourly wage of another honest worker is in and of itself a major problem. It teaches citizens to accept wildly unreciprocal levels of mutual concern, sabotaging the foundations of society.

We should strive to make basic dignity a priority over the thrill of seeking higher earnings. That should be possible, but not an arguable necessity.

 

[Revoltingest]

How did we manage when we stopped needing lamplighters, switchboard operators, or the Pony Express?

There were other things to do, & without min wages & regulatory costs (OSHA, payroll taxes), they could find work.
But we are fast approaching an age where even at min wage, the cheapest worker costs more than $10/hour.
We're seeing these low skill jobs replaced by automation & robots. I expect fembot pole dancers soon!
(Fortunately, fembot dominatrices are a long way off.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

There were other things to do, & without min wages & regulatory costs (OSHA, payroll taxes), they could find work.
But we are fast approaching an age where even at min wage, the cheapest worker costs more than $10/hour.
We're seeing these low skill jobs replaced by automation & robots. I expect fembot pole dancers soon!
(Fortunately, fembot dominatrices are a long way off.)

Cool. How soon can we expect a robot Congress?

 

[Revoltingest]

Cool. How soon can we expect a robot Congress?

We already had the "Governator".

 

[MysticSang'ha]

We already had the "Governator".

But....with Terminator holding the highest executive office in the state of California, where was Skynet?

 

[Revoltingest]

But....with Terminator holding the highest executive office in the state of California, where was Skynet?

Sigh....your education in future history (there's an oxymoron) is sorely lacking.
Skynet doesn't exist yet. The terminator was sent here from the future.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sigh....your education in future history (there's an oxymoron) is sorely lacking.
Skynet doesn't exist yet. The terminator was sent here from the future.

Well now that we've gone off on this tangent for a bit...

Was this Good Terminator or Bad Terminator?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well now that we've gone off on this tangent for a bit...
Was this Good Terminator or Bad Terminator?

Hmmm....from the pic, I think he was the good one from T2.

Notice how PC I am: I attribute male gender, since that is how he presents. Even though
he has genitalia, he is still asexual hormonally & mentally. I respect his decision to choose
this persona.
Btw, how do I know he has genitalia? See the waitress' commentary in this clip from T2....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olXilz8r4uU

 

[Panda]

Lowset wage:highest wage limit.

If your lowest paid worker is paid at $17,160 (or adjusted for part-time, available benefits, cost of benefits, etc.) after 90 days of employment, than the proportion should be no more than 1:300. That would be slightly over 5 million annually. If they hire in multiple countries, like McDonald's for instance, than the lowest amount would be determined based relative to the countries everyone resides in. If they want high salaries, employees must be paid more first. If they don't want to pay employees more first, then they can reinvest it.

So when you say ratio you are talking still large that would only have an effect on company CEOs and other such people.

 

[Reverend Rick]

People will never better themseves by holding others back.