Should the US Copy Switzerland and Consider a 'Maximum Wage' Ratio? 1216
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "John Sutter writes at CNN that as Swiss citizens vote on November 24 to consider capping executive pay at 12 times what the lowest-paid worker at a company makes in a referendum. Some say the idea of tethering top executive pay to some sort of concrete metric might stop American execs from floating further into the stratosphere. 'Here in America, the land of unequal opportunity, the CEOs of top-500 companies make in a single day about what it takes an average "rank-and-file" worker a year to earn, according to the AFL-CIO, the federation of unions,' writes Sutter. 'Democracy starts to unravel if a few people become wildly, ethereally successful, while the rest of a country struggles.' A $1 million salary worked for American CEOs from the 1930s to 1980s, says Lynn Stout. But CEO pay, including options realized that year, jumped about 875%, to $14.1 million, from 1978 to 2012, according to the Economic Policy Institute. 'What we've got is basically an arms race,' Stout says, 'where the CEOs are competing on pay because they each want to have higher status than the others.' Peter Drucker, the father of business management, famously said the CEO-to-worker salary ratio should not exceed 20:1, which is what existed in the United States in 1965. Beyond that, managers will see an increase in 'resentment and falling morale,' said Drucker. Stout has suggested that the IRS make CEO pay a non-deductible business expense when it's higher than 100 times the minimum wage. 'Limiting CEO pay to 100 times the minimum wage would still allow top execs to be millionaires,' concludes Sutter. 'And here's the best part: If the fat cats wanted a pay increase, maybe the best way for them to get it would be to throw political weight behind a campaign to boost the minimum wage.'"
Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
But it will never happen. Because (looks up the current thing we're supposed to hate) because socialisim!
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism is, of course, worker control of the means of production, which is orthogonal to government regulation of pay.
Now the owning classes have learnt that it'll get you richer to milk the fat cows of UK and the USA until they countries have run dry, by which time they can retire somewhere off the Caribbean coast. Is it society's job to curtail this behaviour? Sure, why not. The free market is supposed to be a tool, not a ruler - if it won't do its job, we rework it.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
. The free market
does NOT exist.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. No extreme degree of anything exists. They are simply tendencies.
Now, the long lines in more socialistic economies to buy anything at all not locally produced- they do exist. Try buying a large screen TV in Venezuela this coming January. You might be able to, if you're a member of the right Party. . .
Better red and dead.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the long lines in more socialistic economies to buy anything at all not locally produced- they do exist. Try buying a large screen TV in Venezuela this coming January. You might be able to, if you're a member of the right Party.
US here... I waited in line to buy a ps4, what's your point?
Re:Ludicrous Douche (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to break it to you, but payments in stock really don't work either.
Most such payments are structured so that they get their stock options based on some performance measure. The problem is that the performance measure is continually tweaked so eventually they get their options. They either select different thresholds due to "economic" problems or adjust the mix of companies they compare themselves to so they look better. Unless you force the companies named officers to hold the stock they are paid in for a long time, there is a built in failure mode as they can just sell their stock. And, whether we like it or not, disallowing people to spend their paycheck as they see fit and when they want to - even if it is obscenely large - is just wrong.
I'd much prefer them to get paid only in dollars - no benefits of any sort that every employee in the company isn't also entitled to, no stock options, nothing except pure hard cash. Then apply the ratios. Let the employees see just how bad it is.
If you really want to change things, then start buying company stock directly and vote the proxies you get. Don't invest in mutual funds. Almost all of company proxies have approval options for the stock incentive plans and pay of named executives now. If there is a problem with how a particular company is run, vote against the plans, the pay, and any director who seems to be a problem. Until enough individual investors start picking their own stocks again, it is an uphill battle, but there are votes you can make as a stock investor that are sometimes enough to get noticed and get things changed at companies.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't a better example be Norway or other N European first world countries? Using Venezuela as a typical socialist country is like using Somalia as a typical capitalist country.
I'd guess there are more large screen TVs available in Scandinavia then in Somalia.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
. The free market
does NOT exist.
Absolute zero Kelvin doesn't exist either. That doesn't mean that Minnesota isn't colder than Florida.
It is idiotic to claim that there is no difference between free markets and socialism because there are no mathematically perfect markets with infinite sellers, infinite buyers, and zero barriers to entry. There are plenty of markets that are free enough that the advantages (and disadvantages) of free markets are clear.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
+1. What's interesting to these arguments that say "the free market does not exist," is that they propose the solution is to move in the exact opposite direction of the free market: a direction in which the ruling class controls and will use to its own advantage. If, on the off chance, something like this ridiculous 12:1 pay cap thing gets passed, you will see one of the three things happen: 1) creative ways to subvert the law, possibly bringing in unforeseen consequences that impact far more than just the CEO's; 2) companies and the wealth that they generate flee to more prosperous regions; 3) a combination of both.
But alas, people think that laws can just magically make everything better and people more "equal," by whatever definition they arbitrarily choose. Equality can only ever be objectively defined as equality of opportunity, not equality of distribution. After all, the only way to achieve equality of distribution is via coercively taking from those who have accumulated their wealth via mutually-beneficial exchanges on the free market[1]. There is nothing equal about taking from one and giving to the other. Furthermore, what exactly is the problem with a CEO making 500x the rate of the lowest (or even median) paid worker? Inherently, nothing. What matters is the wealth and progression of the middle class and the freedom to move freely through the classes, based on ones' abilities and desires[2]. I would much rather live in a world with a strong middle class where the CEO's make 1500x what the average worker makes than a world where the middle class barely squeaks by while the CEO's only make 20x what the average worker makes.
Forbidding people from signing contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial is wrong and destructive to the economy. After all, it is not the CEO's who own corporations, but the shareholders. As such, it is the shareholders who ultimately decide upon the pay of the CEO. If the owners of a company decide that it is in the company's best interest to entice the top executives with $x, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Contrary to popular belief, the only way this is possible in the long run, is if the executive actually brings that worth to the corporation. These sorts of laws will *not* bring up the wage of the workers just so that the executives can be paid more; after all, the most an employee can be paid without the company losing money is the discounted marginal value product that he or she brings to the company.
[1] There are, of course, many who make their wealth by rigging the system to keep competition out or via other mechanisms such as exclusive rights or privileges to government contracts, etc. Wealth obtained this way is illegitimate. It is not mutually beneficial, such as those exchanges that occur on the free market.
[2] Individuals' abilities tend to vary during their lifetime. There is nothing wrong with a young, unskilled worker not making as much as a man or woman in the prime years of their earning power. This is the primary source of the disparity between incomes.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
You can analyze literally any proposal for regulation with:
1) People will try to cheat
2) If we stop them from cheating they will leave
and you wouldn't be wrong.
But I don't understand why that means we shouldn't try.
Let 'em leave. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand how any of that address the points I made but:
I believe it's a moral imperative to limit the maximum pay ratio, based on precisely the same factors you used to determine it was morally wrong (I assume, since you didn't list any). I also don't see it as a penalty for the rich any more than taxes are.
Perhaps more importantly I do not see how limiting the pay ratio is something that could be "extended to all of the country" with respect to limiting everyone's pay (or again, how that's fundamentally different than income tax) -- by definition a pay ratio limit only affects the highest pay rates.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
"You cann dress it up and call it a ratio all you want but in the end, it is telling companies they cannot pay someone over a certain amount."
Wrong.
A 12:1 ratio just means that if you want to pay your CEO $12million/year you just have raise the wage of your lowest level employees up to $1million/year.
The proposed law would do nothing to forbid that.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is telling executives, you cannot make more then a certain amount. Once that is in place, there is absolutely nothing preventing it from being done on any job period.
It's not clear how a maximum-wage law is any worse (from a moral or ideological standpoint) than a minimum-wage law, and those are widely considered acceptable.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Do CEOs labor 50 or even 12 times harder than janitors?
No, in the end it is telling companies that they must pay all employees closer to the average amount. Companies may freely choose to raise the average instead of limiting the top outliers.
Companies succeed or fail as an organism and rely on the performance of every part.
Your philosophy is like saying the brain deserves 50 times more calories than the hands because it's smart enough to negotiate a better salary from the stomach. And that this continues to be morally correct even when the fingers are starving and falling off.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter how much harder they work. If the janitors want to make the same wage, they should get the same jobs.
Obviously janitors can't get those jobs. Not only because of accidents of birth intelligence wise, but accidents of birth socially wise. Most execs had wealth parents, most janitors had working class parents. The old-boy network, or the ivy-league network counts for much more than ability does. That's no reason to multiply the advantages of those that were born lucky, by giving them pay out of all proportion to the work they do.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Too much of a good thing can be bad. If it can't come to a natural balance on its own, then it needs to be forced into an artificial balance or it needs to be destroyed.
Sorry, you lost me on the first sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
This is patent nonsense, once you understand that a "mutually beneficial contract" is a fiction that already needs intervention to enforce. Contracts are pieces of paper with no value. They only have meaning and value because some government intervenes by deploying police with guns, and books with laws written in them, to prevent two parties from treating contracts as meaningless, which is what they naturally are in the absence of said enforcement.
There's no moral difference between a government that enforces contracts, and one that enforces a pay scale ratio, or any of a miriad other things.
Worked fine in Japan (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the rich using loop holes; just because something is hard to do doesn't mean you don't do it. I've noticed that capitalists throw their hands up and say "I give" at the slightest challenge. As near as I can tell the "Free Market" means leaving things to chance and hoping for the best. I've never once in my life seen a situation where people just let the chips fall where they will and had it be anything more than a cluster-!#$@.
What I'm saying is the solution to our problems isn't hoping some vague principles and ideas will guide us to utopia (an "Invisible Hand" if you will). We need direct human action followed by careful adjustment of policies based and continual testing and data collection. You know, someone should give that method a name. It sounds kinda, I don't know, "Scientific"...
Re:Worked fine in Japan (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Japan's tent cities have nothing to do with the fact that they forced 2 decades of stagflation upon their population or the massive real estate boom prior.
Re:Worked fine in Japan (Score:5, Insightful)
Japan had laws like this for years, and they kept worker wages high. It was only when the laws were repealed you started seeing traditional western style wealth inequality. Now Japan's back to tent cities for the homeless. Something I never thought I'd see in that country.
Really? I'd love to know where you get this from, when my parents visited there in the 70's there were tent cities, and when my grandfather came over there were tent cities. And when he visited, back in the 50's and 60's there were tent cities. You want to know the difference between then and now? If you were poor, broke, and living like that you were expected to stay out of sight of the general population and hide your shame. These days, that idea has pretty much fallen by the wayside.
It's the same deal with the "salaryman" mentality that permeated the society for 30 odd years. Which of course has done a wonderful job of destroying the entire family unit.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing equal about taking from one and giving to the other. (...) What matters is the wealth and progression of the middle class and the freedom to move freely through the classes, based on ones' abilities and desires.
But reality is more messy than that, there are all sorts of people whose abilities and skills (ranked on how useful or desired by others) are a poor match for today's society. Having a system that only rewards those who fit in best is a recipe for disaster and dehumanizing/neglecting those that don't fit in / are less fit. Diversity is longterm strength, but more importantly we have the capability for rational compassion and care for others and the wealth to make supporting everyone a minor burden at worst. Anyone who has experience with family who cannot succeed financially, but brings them great joy otherwise could tell you how important compassion and care for others is for their entire family.
Setting up a system that takes away the fears and worries about living with a decent quality of life: food, shelter, health care, meaningful work, etc brings unimaginable, but generally indirect (until something terrible happens directly to you or your family), benefits to all. Think reduced crime, more opportunity for someone to make the thing you've always wanted, etc. In a perfect world, this would be common sense and giving and support of others would be voluntary, but (especially in societies that emphasize the rightness of owning and hording regardless of the impact on others) the enforcing of distribution of wealth is a useful but blunt tool.
In addition, in this particular example, capping pay has a direct benefit to the companies: the last sort of person we want running a large business/organization that is designed to outlast their tenure is someone motivated strongly by financial incentives. That sort of leader is a real risk to the organization as they will always make mistakes in their favour rather than sacrifice for the organization.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hah, hah. Very funny. Shareholders have so little rights these days and boards are stacked with the CEO's buddies in ways that make it such that CEO pay is almost impossible for shareholders to control. Do you really think it was in shareholders' interest for the former CEO of Home Depot to get a $200M pay-off?
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that the shareholders still hold shares indicates that the majority of them did, in fact, not care enough to move their investments elsewhere. Or if they did, others thought Home Depot was a good opportunity, in spite of the $200M pay off. The point is, bad management kills organizations. Can a corporation make ridiculous decisions? Of course. But the market is not very forgiving; too much of this and the company will go under; therefore, it is in the corporation's best interest to not do things like this. The trouble is, people have a tendency of looking at a corporation in a vacuum, devoid of other investment opportunities. It is a very truncated perspective.
The bulk of the shareholders for most corporations are not individuals. They are either part of a small group of cronies and/or relatives or the shares are held in large blocks by investment funds and similar institutions. And almost never is the actual determination of executive compensation determined directly by this skewed form of democracy. At best there's a compensation committee.
There's no direct linear correlation between compensation and performance. Anything but, considering that some people rake in more for failure than most of us will receive in a lifetime of success. In any event, once you reach a certain level, you're playing for points, not essential income. So if there's an even-handed set of rules limiting upsides, it just adds a certain extra challenge to the game, that's all.
I have nothing personal against becoming obscenely wealthy (donations gladly accepted). As long as it isn't at the expense of others. But when some people's incomes shoot exponentially higher while the majority see a net loss through multiple boom-and-bust cycles, then something's wrong.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Forbidding people from signing contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial is wrong and destructive to the economy.
Right. Because the unemployed guy with a mortgage and family; he's on an equal footing when negotiating his wage with Walmart.
If he doesn't like the terms walmart offers, he can gamble that he'll find something better before the bank takes his home.
Seriously, to talk of equals signing mutally agreeable contracts is bullshit. These people are in a "take what they can get" position.
There is nothing wrong with a young, unskilled worker not making as much as a man or woman in the prime years of their earning power.
So are you in favor of a rising minimum wage with age then? So that every "man or woman in the prime years of their earning power" are making more than the high school kid dipping fries after school?
Because right now, they are not.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the discounted marginal value product that a CEO brings to a company?
I have seen no evidence that the salary of the CEO has any correlation with the success of a company. Nor have I seen evidence that past success is any better than random chance as a predictive indicator of future success by a CEO.
The ecology of CEOs and shareholders has more in common with feudal oligarchy than it does with free market economics.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it limits the pay of CEOs. And even they can get more pay simply by paying their underlings more. Which is only fair, since it's those underlings who actually did the work for the achievement the CEO is taking credit for.
That said, I agree with you conlusion about the actual results. Sociopathic professional looters have no trouble finding new and exciting ways to game the system and crashing the economy again and again and again. Once systemic corruption takes hold, as it has, it's almost impossible to purge.
Oh well. Times have changed before, they will change again, and given the increasing pace of change I'd say they're about to. It'll be exciting to see what'll replace global capitalism, and whether it'll be an improvement.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
And even they can get more pay simply by paying their underlings more.
They can also get paid more by firing the lowest paid, and either automating their jobs or shipping the jobs overseas. This is true even in cases where such automation and outsourcing is not in the best interest of the company, and would not otherwise make economic sense.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider me dumb, but how on Earth will capping executive pay on a scale of an entire country lead to increased poverty? You think that people who can live with earning a bit less than their current excesses will magically perform worse? That someone who doesn't earn millions USD per year can't lead a large multinational corporation? The heck? Do you really think that people's performance is solely determined by their pay? Really? That's your rational position?
This is not about economic growth and got nothing to do with it. It's all about people in the top positions earning commensurately with the human nature. Just because you're a CEO doesn't magically make you perform 3+ orders of magnitude better than the rest of us.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
It is about economic growth because when you place restraints like this on the market, there are real economic consequences.
In real terms (PPP), for the vast majority of the population, there has been no economic growth in the west since the 80s. All the economic benefits since then have accrued only to the wealthy elite.
So the current system is clearly failing - it is not delivering benefit to society.
Re: Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. The american dream is to become wealthy. It is not dependent upon someone else becoming poor. The economy is not a zero sum game.
That's true, but the divvying up of a company's income is a zero sum game. Reduced pay/benefits for the employees means more money left over for the CEO and the shareholders, and vice versa. Given that (and a weak job market), it's not surprising that (non-elite) people end up working harder every year for less compensation. That's not widely considered to be a desirable outcome.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe not. It's possible in those markets that are "free enough" that it's the part that's NOT free that demonstrates the advantage (or disadvantage).
You can say that one market is freer than another, sure, but you can't say which of those will be more successful.
Plus, there is a tendency of those that become successful in the market automatically seek to destroy the "free" part of the market
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny enough the countries with quite a bit of socialism such as the Nordic countries have the most social mobility with America coming in second worst after the UK when it comes to be able to move into a different social economic class as your parents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Country_comparison [wikipedia.org]
Seems the best move is to take the best of the various isms instead of pretending that one ism is far superiour.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Socialism is merely a word to ward off the unwanted. A talisman, in this context. Tomorrow the word may be economy, or global warming.
Any excuse will do when you ask the people who have and control the power to give up some of it.
Arguing the definition or merits of socialism is irrelevant, in this context.
Re: (Score:3)
I stopped taking you seriously when you capitalised Free Market in the style of God, but srsly, dude, it's just an economic ideal, which can be used as a basis or influence for any practical economy, but cannot be applied directly to any practical ecnomoy.
Re: Yes. (Score:3)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
The closest was the Eastern US in the late 1800s, post Civil War, where government was a completely laissez faire entity.
This resulted in a few people (Carnegie and Frick for example) being quite wealthy, while most Americans were duking it out among floods of immigrants for menial work, companies owned their own towns (and being fired meant getting kicked out of one's community), and one was expected to work seven days a week, or else replaced by someone who would at a lower pay rate.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
And where, exactly, has a truly "free" market ever been observed?
I am currently on vacation in Sanya, on the Island of Hainan in southern China. There is a fruit and vegetable market two blocks from here. Anyone can bring their produce, set up a stand, and start selling. There is no fee, and no tax. There are typically hundreds of merchants, and thousands of customers (especially in the late afternoon). There is plenty of haggling, and it is easy to compare products, as a competitor is only a meter away. How is this market not free? This is not an obscure example. Billions of people shop in these sort of informal markets everyday.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Funny)
US seems to be doing just fine. Economy is growing, no bubbles, etc.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
By almost any objective measure of standard of living, general happiness, health and well being the USA comes in last when compared to other modern western states.
The USA has more murder, higher income disparity, lower economic mobility, terrible health care, almost non-existent social safety net, uneven education, and we could could go on for a bit here, but you get the idea.
The USA is still an economic powerhouse, but the rewards are going disproportionately to the already wealthy. There are many signs that the USA is heading the wrong way: unreasoning ideology replacing thoughtful policy, laws based on fear not facts, various scandals involving abuse of power by almost all levels of government, and population quite happy to trade false security for their liberty.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
What a strange reply. As far as bang for one's buck goes, the US healthcare system is severely lagging and pretty [theverge.com] much [ucsc.edu] everyone [marketwatch.com] knows this. Perhaps you should go back and read what he had to say instead of spouting nonsense about the need for facts without providing any.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Insurance companies also have panels that decide whether you get covered for whatever ails you.
The insurance companies have also fixed the system so that, as you observe, the U.S. has a problem with access. When a prior condition is enough to ding you out of the insurance market, one must question whether the insurance companies are worth having or should be first up against the wall.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of all countries US is one of the last in the failing list. Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and most of socialist Latin America, on the other hand are in utter misery. Social Democrat countries in Latin America and Europe, as France, Spain, Portugal, Brazil and Argentina are not that bad but waaay worse than US.
Do you think France is way worse than the US? If you have an income of $100,000 or more a year, you might be better off in the US (depending on what your preferences are for luxury). If you have an income of $25,000 or less, you'd be better off in France. For one thing, you'd have pretty good health care. Doctors do house calls. For another, you'd have education. University education is still free in France, after a few demonstrations in the street to preserve it. The same university education in the U.S. would cost $100,000, and most would leave most middle class students in debt for the rest of their lives.
China is indeed doing fine (compared to what it has been during its communist phase), but it is probably one of the countries who is most practicing free market in the world currently.
If you expand the definition of "free market" to include an economy in which the members of the Communist Party political elite and the army have all the capital and and all the connections, and make all the money. The most important thing is still who your father is. It's not a country where a bright, hardworking young guy from the country can rise like Andrew Carnegie. Their health care system is a horror. Doctors give treatments that actually harm their patients (like quack "brain surgery" and IV antibiotics), because the treatments are very profitable.
They adopted the former model of the CP and army running everything, and turned it into capitalist factories where the same people who ran the CP and army still run everything.
So, you see the farther you go from Free Market the poorer the economy of a given country does. You can analyze any country throughout its history.
If you look at China throughout its history, it was during the Communist period that they turned an illiterate country into a country where everyone could read. That was the indisputable great accomplishment of the Communist party in most parts of the world -- they taught everyone to read. (When the Communists controlled Afghanistan, girls and women were going to school.) The Chinese Communists turned China into a country with a literate, educated population and an industrial base for its new capitalists to take advantage of.
You seem to be looking at social indicators selectively. There are several in which the US does badly. For example, we have among the lowest social mobility in the developed world. In the US, your father's income and social status determine your income and social status to a greater degree than almost anywhere else. We're equal to Brazil. Our health care indicators aren't that good either.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at China throughout its history, it was during the Communist period that they turned an illiterate country into a country where everyone could read.
Speaking of looking at things selectively, that isn't really a communist achievement. That happened in basically every non-impovrished country around the globe. And most of them didn't try to follow Lysenkoism in the process.......
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's overlook the 20 million Chinese that didn't get educated because Mao killed them via hunger, purges, whatever it took...he wasn't choosy.
Re: (Score:3)
It is past time for people to start realizing that the government is not a solution against corporation abuse and will never be.
Re:Stock Options (Score:4, Insightful)
If the government can't curb them, that just leaves angry mobs killing their leaders and burning their headquarters down. Not regulating them is not an acceptable answer.
Re:Stock Options (Score:5, Informative)
Study the French Revolution.
Re:Stock Options (Score:5, Interesting)
The best analogue for it today would be the people taking down the president and the congress and putting corporation executives in their place.
Re:Stock Options (Score:5, Insightful)
The objective is to tie their pay to the pay of everyone else in the company. The ultimate goal is to harness their personal greed to raise pay for everyone else, preferably to pull it back in line with the growth of the GDP.
Re:Stock Options (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stock Options (Score:4, Interesting)
What would happen is that CEO pay would end up being paid at the maximum... but there are many ways to give people value. Offshore bank accounts are one way, a wallet full of BitCoins can be another. Or if one wanted to be extremely low tech about it, large precious metal purchases physically handed to the person.
Instead, if one wanted something, try for a tax, not a ban. Bans, if they are worked around (which they will be) completely fail. However, a tax that a few people find a workaround still succeeds.
I don't like even mentioning this this, but if a country wanted a maximum wage, have an income tax curve with a sharp spike at the upper end. This can be worked around, but at least it brings some partial compliance.
Re: (Score:3)
You think a CEO wants to deal with a wallet full of Bitcoins that the value varies so hugely with over time, and is still considered something that could be quashed by governments? Nah.
What they'll do is simply outsource all the low pay jobs in the copany to other companies that suddenly their spouses and friends start up. All that will be left of the parent company is executives, that can crank up their salaries at will.
Re:Stock Options (Score:5, Insightful)
What would happen is that CEO pay would end up being paid at the maximum... but there are many ways to give people value.
If it's just a ratio; then why not increase the rate of the lowest employee?
Fire all your low-wage employees
Create a new "Employee rental company" with separate management whose sole purpose in life is to manage all the low-wage employees. For example: "McDonalds Employee Rental company." or "McDonalds Outsourced Customer service and Kitchen Operatins Inc."
Establish a long-term contract between the two companies; so the Kitchen/CS Outsourcing company's source of revenue is that outsourcing contract. The outsourcing company hires all the low-wage workers.
The company outsourcing its operations pays this contract; that capitalizes the cost of maintaining the daily operations of all the restaurants, to the outsourcing/Employee Rental company.
McDonalds itself, has only management, then has the lowest employee paid at $10000/Hour or so.
find a way around (Score:5, Interesting)
^mod up
I came here to say the very same thing.
I'm a left-leaning libertarian policywise & the minimum wage issue gives me trouble.
the progressive/liberal in me says we need minimum wage laws for the same reason we need worker safety regulations...
the libertarian in me thinks it's a temporary fix for a broken system
the Republican in me does another shot, does a line off a hooker's ass, & calls my wife to tell her I'll be late for Sunday school
but i digress...
I can't think of a good reason to oppose this whole minimum wage law Renaissance...but I see trouble brewing...
TFA is a sing of it...some sort of national "Salary Cap"???
Why don't we just raise taxes back to their...idk...Dwight D. Eisenhower levels?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
As the executive you'd still be allowed a wage one hundred times that of the lowest paid worker which seems very fair to me. Besides, your business is unlikely to ever reach the kind of turn-over where you could afford to pay yourself that much. If it does you'll be the owner of the company so your net worth would still be very large. An argument based on personal risk in this context is flawed. I'd rather see a raised progressive tax rather than a flat out ban on high wages though, because I have a feeling that won't pan out. Anyway, best of luck to you in the future.
Sounds good on paper (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's not going to work in the US, where rapid growth is part of the ostensible "American Dream" -- which includes gobs of wealth.
Re:Sounds good on paper (Score:5, Informative)
But it's not going to work in the US, where rapid growth is part of the ostensible "American Dream" -- which includes gobs of wealth.
"it's not going to work in the US because citizens won't ever get to vote on anything like that."
FTFY.
People will still be able to make "gobs of wealth" in Switzerland, it's just that the people lower down the chain have to make money, not just the CEO.
Re:Sounds good on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the rich will still be able to make "gobs of wealth" by outsourcing all their low paying jobs to contractors or or other copanies providing the low-pay employees to do the grunt work.
Re:Sounds good on paper (Score:5, Interesting)
I think tying CEO pay to minimum wage is a far worse idea than tying it to the lowest paid employee.
If the CEO wage is tied to the lowest paid employee, they can always double their pay by paying the employees more. They can't individually raise the minimum wage.
Re: (Score:3)
The cause of this is actually Australia's ridiculously high minimum wage of $15 an hour.
Oh bullshit. No it's not. The cause of it is price gouging and rampant profiteering. It doesn't cost one red cent more to send a container ship full of widgets from Singapore or any of a dozen Chinese ports to Australia than it does to send it to Seattle, San Francisco, or LA. Australia's high prices for plastic crap have nothing to do with their minimum wage and everything to do with logistics and the US's Most Favored Nation status with China.
Re:Sounds good on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps everybody from the dock workers to those who stock the shelves full of goods have to be paid twice as much there as they do in the USA.
You're just bound and determined to make it the fault of those greedy greedy workers and their million dollar mansions, aren't you.
I say again, bullshit. One of the most aggressive, most pervasive, and most powerful unions in the United States is the International Longshoreman Association. Those would be the people who handle every piece of freight that enters the US. Your average longshoreman (not dockworker; dockworkers are the people who run pallet jacks on and off of trucks at loading docks) makes $44/hr.
A once powerful union, the Teamsters Union, moves all that freight across the country. These days only about 16% of truck drivers are Teamsters, but truck drivers in general still manage to average $18/hr.
The price of expensive, even very expensive shipping and handling labor is already factored in to the price of every piece of plastic crap sitting on Walmart's shelves, labor that costs much more than Australia's minimum wage. That plastic crap is still cheap. Famously cheap.
Repeating your religious beliefs over and over again does not make them so.
Re:Sounds good on paper (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. They make big bux because they sit on each other's boards and quid pro quo their way to stratospheric pay.
The talent argument is a non-starter. Even CEOs that crash the company against the rocks and then abandon ship seem to find a new even higher paying position before their seat is even cold. Surely that sort of 'talent' isn't in demand.
Your whole Australia thing doesn't follow logically at all since that article is about American companies over-charging Australians.
Re:Sounds good on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
Executives are paid high salaries because (good ones at least) are sought after
There are a very small number of truly exceptional C?Os and most of those know a single industry very well and do badly when translated to other markets. According to a study that was on Slashdot a couple of years ago, the vast majority make decisions that are no better for the company that a random selection. You can replace most Fortune 500 CEOs with a magic 8 ball and get about the same performance. That's not true of most of the other employees, including the janitors, so why are they paid several orders of magnitude more? Because most of the CEOs are on the boards of other companies and approve large salaries in exchange for the same favour being paid to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Executive salaries are obscenely high because the executives are on each other companies board of directories and vote each other high salaries. It has nothing to do with attracting talent. And this is another case of free market fail as it is very common for shareholders to vote (non binding of course) for lower executive salaries and being ignored by the board.
Re: (Score:3)
So you're saying that paying someone a higher minimum wage makes them poorer... hmmm....
No. Increasing the minimum wage means they don't have a job any more, because the company replaced them with a machine, or moved the job abroad.
Re:Sounds good on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
By this logic then surely overpaid American executives should all be unemployed as they would be replaced by harder working cheaper Chinese bosses? After all American CEOs seem to love cheaper harder-working Chinese peasantry?
Libertarian argument:
Motivate the rich by giving them more money.
Motivate the poor by giving them less.
Therefore the economy works better if poor people have to work like dogs to afford food & all the money saved can be given to billionaires. If the poor moan about this then they're clearly too lazy to start their own multinational company.
Economic debate 2013: Still stuck in the 1800s. Jeez.
Re: (Score:3)
Paying one person a higher wage does not, but raising the minimum wage does.
Wage floors reduce the value of money. What good does it do to give somebody more money if that money now buys less?
Re:Yes, no hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
You say that raising minimum wages causes poverty and reduces employment as if you have some facts to back this up. Unfortunately for you the facts say the opposite: Higher wages won't increase unemployement [salon.com], no harm when wages raised [aneconomicsense.com], "another study says you are wrong. [businessinsider.com]
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm the sort who prefers a more socialist state but I don't see how a wage disparity causes democracy to unravel. Bad education and information are what causes democracy to unravel. Not high pay.
The voters are the ones who keep voting for status quo. If they really are desperately unhappy they should vote for something else. But they aren't. So either they aren't that unhappy, or they are voting wrong. If they are voting wrong it isn't high CxO pay, it's bad education and/or information.
That's assuming of course the elections aren't completely Diebolded.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad education and information are what causes democracy to unravel. Not high pay.
Not always. There's been a lot of CEOs lately who:
a) Take a working company
b) Outsource it to India
c) Fire all the workers (they call it "downsizing")
d) Pay themselves a mega-bonus with all the money made in short-term cost savings
e) Set themselves up a monstrous pension plan based on "projected earnings" (which will suck all the profit out of the company for years to come)
f) Move to another company before it all comes crashing down in ruins
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there is one additional factor generally necessary to be an eight-figure-income CEO, called "networking" (or "nepotism" in older sources). If you are the child of an eight-figure-salary CEO, so you go to the prestigious private schools with other eight-figure-salary CEO's children, then join the ivy league frat with the billionaires' kids, you'll be handed at least a six- or seven-figure management position straight out of school, and be allowed to hang out at the country club with the older oligarchs. Then, once you've demonstrated a better than, say, seventy percent probability that you're not such a complete fuckup that you'll destroy an entire company before the top shareholders can grab their loot, you'll be handed the seven- to eight-figure salary position. The limited "networking" social circle of the oligarchy keeps the common riffraff of penis pill scammers from directly competing against the prior generation oligarchs' kids, despite being equally capable for the job.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm the sort who prefers a more socialist state but I don't see how a wage disparity causes democracy to unravel. Bad education and information are what causes democracy to unravel. Not high pay.
I'm not quite sure yet if I support what the article is talking about... but this one seems like an easy one to answer. Education isn't free. Those with money can get a better education. Those with little money get less or no education. It's all the same thing.
Mathematical explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm the sort who prefers a more socialist state but I don't see how a wage disparity causes democracy to unravel
Here's a thought experiment:
1) Allocate an array of floats and set each value to 1.0.
2) Randomly choose a float, weighted by its value, and increase its value by 1%, then replace it.
"Weighted by its value" means that the probability of choosing any float is it's value divided by the sum of all values in the array.
3) Repeat 2 above for a large number of rounds.
What you will find is that over time some values will skyrocket exponentially. This happens regardless of the number of floats or the amount of increase, or whether the increase is gifted or zero-sum (ie - whether the increase is deducted from the other values). It's an effect inherent in the "increase by percent" rule, which defines an exponential growth. It also doesn't depend on the initial values, so long as the value isn't zero (negative values will skyrocket the other direction).
This mathematical model underlies much of our current economy, with net (invested) worth being the float value, and compound interest being the rule. The old saying "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" is rooted in mathematics.
Different rules affect the rates in different ways: compound interest is an exponential increase on value, but inflation is an exponential drain. The difference between two exponentials is itself an exponential (unless they are exactly equal), so the result is still an exponential. Government subsidy is the zero-sum rule of increasing the value of one float by taking it away from others, &c.
Consider now the effect of a fixed consumption level: food, shelter, and so on. As the system becomes more mature, ever more of the total value is stored in fewer floats, and the majority of floats become proportionally small. As mentioned, government subsidies serve to increase a few values at the expense of others, as does inflation.
When the situation matures enough that most people cannot afford food and shelter, they will revolt. They will burn down the system and try something new. (Viz: French Revolution [wikipedia.org])
Something that takes us out of the exponential mathematical model might serve to defuse discontent and revolution. Whether capping executive pay is effective or sufficient remains to be seen, but on the surface it looks like a rational response to avert a foregone outcome.
Re:Mathematical explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
I really like this post. I have been playing with (or -- threatening to play with) a nearly identical model myself. There are a number of things to prove about this Markov chain, including what the stationary distribution is.
One additional effect to consider would be something like a "blur kernel," which could describe the flow of wealth within the economy to "nearby" individuals (e.g., the coffee shops in the finance district might be able to charge more, and so wealth will tend to diffuse to them). I think that effects like this are, at least in theory, what are supposed to prevent the excessive concentration of capital. Modeled on a graph, one could ask questions like, "How does income inequality (e.g., Gini coefficient) change as a function of graph connectivity (e.g., Fiedler number)?" The obvious story then would be that, as the economy becomes increasingly centralized in a topological sense (with some appropriate graph-theoretic measure of centralization), or as people become less dependent on commerce with their peers, distributions sharpen and inequality grows.
Finally, I'll add that there are other models of social phenomena, like armed conflict, with similar "inequality exacerbating" properties; see e.g. Lanchester's square law [wikipedia.org] of combat. In fact, I think RTS games like Starcraft are an interesting model for this kind of thing -- they're really-abstracted models of violent societies -- and, between Lanchester's square law, and the exponential growth of the economy (the rate at which you can build SCVs is the rate at which you can mine minerals is the rate at which you can build SCVs...), you see the same kind of positive feedback there. Of course, I don't think you need a full-on video game to demonstrate this; the old board game Monopoly was invented by a Quaker woman to exhibit the same property and so demonstrate the evils of capitalism (...and everyone missed the point). In short, I think it's easy, and interesting, to construct mathematical systems that broadly have these properties.
Of course, to turn this kind of mathematical play into something with actual predictive power -- to do science -- would be a whole 'nother undertaking.
No. (Score:3)
We should simply stop giving tax dollars to these companies enabling these huge differences due to inflation paired up with government contracts. Put actual supply and demand in place and the problem they're attempting to address goes away on its own.
Lets count the loopholes... (Score:5, Insightful)
So the execs will layoff the lowest paid workers and hire other companies in to do the job of those workers.
Or they will split the company and have one company own the other. Low paid workers in the one company and high paid workers in the other.
So many ways around this they will never close all the loopholes.
Ratio (Score:5, Insightful)
I know Americans don't want to hear this... but a large gap between rich and poor is BAD for society.
How do the rich get rich? By selling things to the lower and middle classes. They then put that money into economic development... which creates jobs, money that gets spent on more shit ... which goes back to the rich.
In the last 30 years, the rich have openly grabbed everything to themselves... and held down wages for the lower classes. So how do you do that and still get richer... you LEND to the lower classes. Hence the debt apocalypse we've been having.
Like it or not... the solution to all this is to income redistribution. You FORCE the rich to pay tax and put it back in at the middle and bottom - which they then spend on shit. The rich are too greedy and short-sighted to realise that this doesn't jeopardise their position... they get the money back along with development for society, the economy and less societal unrest and crime due to the massive wealth gap.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Because contrary to current dogma, the bulk of human history has had "haves" and "have nots" - and the disparity between the two has been STAGGERING.
The fact is that neo-socialists (and people who derive political power from such positions - let's not forget the original mission of the AFL-CIO quoted in the OP) have as just an illusionary utopianist view of "what society should be" with as much rationale as do the Tea-Partiers.
The fact is that some people are capable, some aren't.
Take a mythical cr
Re:Ratio (Score:5, Insightful)
I know Americans don't want to hear this... but a large gap between rich and poor is BAD for society.
Excuse me, but when you use the phrase "Americans", you are claiming what follows is true of the majority. It is most certainly not. The majority of Americans are right now either below or near poverty guideline; And they will tell you in no uncertain terms that the rich getting richer is not okay. We tried to organize a resistance to this; You seem to have already forgotten Occupy Wall Street. You may also have forgotten what happened: The police sent in tanks and armed para-military squads to arrest and jail the protesters. Department of Homeland Security coordinated strikes across 28 different cities effecting mass arrests, while orchestrating a minimal media presence; Over 15,000 people were arrested and not a single major media outlet covered it. In California, workers went on strike and joined protesters to seal the entire port off in an attempt to gain media attention. It failed.
So let me be very, very clear on this point: The majority are fed up. We've tried rebelling. But when we see every attempt to organize for social change squashed and people jailed and stripped of their assets... it tends to have a chilling effect on future protest. And maybe you've been asleep all this time, but we have some rather pervasive surveillance. Police today come at protesters sideways... for every tear gas canister lobbed into a crowd, there's fifty more people having their door busted in on bogus drug warrants, or police sent to find something, anything, to detain those involved. And they sleep quite well believing they're protecting America from the dirty, filthy protesters, who are probably forming little terror cells too.
So no. You do not get to say the majority doesn't want to hear this. The majority has heard it. Too many times. The majority, however, is sick of losing everything and seeing little to no actual change for their troubles. If there's going to be a change, it will have to come from outside. America is no longer a democracy. It no longer responds to democratic pressure. If there's to be a change anymore, it will have to be external. And historically, such change only comes at a cost in blood.
Re:Ratio (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you referencing the 1920's, where the rich had no limits and they gobbled up everything and the entire economy tanked(1929, great depression, etc), so we put limits on them, taxed them, built infrastructure, and we had a really good run afterward?
Ironically, I don't think you are. Those that do not learn from history looking like idiots on the internet indeed....
raise capital gains tax (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait until all Janitorial is "contracted out". (Score:5, Interesting)
Using the Physical Resources Department (Janitorial Department) of a company as an example: All a given business would have to do is contract out the work of the lowest paid employees. Since those lowest paid employees would no longer work for the original company, the CEO's pay could increase accordingly to fall in line with 12 times the next highest employee.
Repeat until every different cast of employee has formed its respective company for contract based work. There will be the association of: Janitors, Nurses, Doctors, Engineers, Car Wash Attendants, McDonalds staff, Retail Clerks, etc. At this point society will still be classed based, and very much like "A Brave New World".
Where does the money go, then? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Make your society egalitarian with this 1 weird trick!"
If we postulate that this measure will leave company profits unchanged, then the cap will send extra money somewhere else. Its backers seem to assume that it would go to the rank and file workers, but I think it likelier that the owners of the firm would begin experiencing a better return on their money. That cohort, too, is wealthier than average, though not by so much as CEOs since a lot of it is comprised of pension funds and mutual funds. In any case, the loopholes around this kind of measure are so numerous that it would be silly to pursue.
What we really need is to bring back serious inheritance taxes, even if some people want to call them "death taxes". In the long run, huge wealth is not a societal problem so long as it doesn't become dynastic. Rather than playing havoc with the incentives of the living via convoluted tax laws and weird rules, let's concentrate on fighting the growth of entrenched classes.
Re: (Score:3)
It's quite simple really. At the moment the best way of making money is to already have money and then use it to get other people to work for you inn one way or another. That means that the more money you start with, the more you'll make, which means you have even more money to make even more money with. Positive feedback. Left unchecked it leads to something akin to medieval Europe.
One way to stop t
Thought experiments (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a law that says movie stars can only make 100 times what the lowest wage guy on the movie set makes? Perhaps recording artists should only make some multiple of what some guy in the studio does? Maybe authors can only make some multiple of what the editors at their publishing houses make?
Does anyone really believe laws like that that would lead to net improvements in those areas, or for society in general? Paging Harrison Bergeron [wikipedia.org]. This way lies madness, folks. As P.J. O'Rourke put it:
Re:Thought experiments (Score:5, Insightful)
How about a law that says movie stars can only make 100 times what the lowest wage guy on the movie set makes? Perhaps recording artists should only make some multiple of what some guy in the studio does? Maybe authors can only make some multiple of what the editors at their publishing houses make?
You can argue until the cows come home how fair or not fair it is for so much wealth to pool to the top. But at the end of the day, if you live in a democracy, and it is the people's perception that the wealthy have gone too far, the people will say Enough Is Enough, and take the wealth from the wealthy, by force, if necessary.
It's in the enlightened self interest of the super wealthy (this includes CEOs) to not allow their massive wealth accumulation to become so severe that The People rise up and take their wealth from them. CEO compensation has pretty obviously crossed the line to the point where the vast majority of people think they are dirty rotten overly greedy bastards.
Wealthy people should consider this sooner rather than later.
Re:Thought experiments (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think that pro sports players and coaches, and top hip-hop musicians, all make "too much" money. But so what?
I'm not sure how I could explain the "so what" part to you any more clearly: in a democracy, if there is too much wealth pooling (or the perception thereof), the people will take your money from you, by force, if necessary.
Thus, it's in the enlightened self interest of the wealthy not to get too wealthy (or perceived to be too wealthy).
Re: (Score:3)
Also, "free market" only work if all competitors know all the information of the free market.
Well, what is the information of the free market? It's the listed prices of anything traded on the market. That is public knowledge. Knowing things outside of the market, such as there's another free market over the hill offering gasoline for three quarters of the price, is not information of the free market. Knowing the past trading history of a stock or the condition of its finances is not information of the free market, except as it is reflected in the current spread of the stock. So for example, informa
Politics of envy (Score:4, Insightful)
This is just typical anti-capitalist politics-of-envy bollocks. "Democracy starts to unravel"? Really? Getting paid the going rate *is* the sign of a free society. Attracting the best talent cost real money. I bet most of the commenters here don't complain when their favorite sportsperson gets paid millions.
Why not a minimum income (Score:3, Interesting)
Switzerland voted on that too. Why not give everyone enough for food and housing and healthcare. Only let the 1% get rich after society is taken care of.
The ratio should be the metric, not the means. (Score:5, Insightful)
A pay ratio should be the metric for achieving a more egalitarian society, not the means. If we tried to make it the means, corporations would just find loopholes. First they'd hire outside contractors to mop the floors. Then they'd form companies to provide the service of executive management. "The lowest-paid employee at our company makes $1 million, so I can make $20 million!"
What we need is a progressive individual income tax structure in which the top marginal tax rate approaches 100% as income approaches minimum hourly wage * 24 * 365. Close all the investment and offshore accounting loopholes. With this in place, we can completely eliminate all corporate taxes.
After you win Monopoly, you play Risk. (Score:5, Interesting)
Income inequality in the US has been like this before in the 1920s, then flattened out during the Great Depression into the 1950s. It'll flatten out again. The only question is "how?". It can be more or less disorderly. We can suffer from inequality for a long time though. Why does it cause problems?
I used to be part of the "oh noes! socialism" crowd, but when you look around the world and start thinking about it, you realize disparity is a problem.
I always like to pull this out of politics, and conduct a though experiment. The experiment is this: What would happen if one king had all the money?
That's the absurd projection of where we're headed. IMHO, what would happen is that money would lose its value. Long before the king had all of it, people would give up on money. They'd go to barter, or invent their own form of money.
Well, guess what? We've seen alternative currencies that people ignored like gold and silver become more popular. We've had people taking interest in novel currencies like BitCoin. Why?
Because the original money is hoarded by the wealthy. The original money game has been won. A strange thing happens when you win the money game though. Your money doesn't circulate, so it's no longer worth as much as money. Surprise, surprise, the elites are pressed to devalue the dollar. The Fed is just responding to the fact that a hoarded dollar cannot have much value.
So. If you want the dollar to have value again, it must circulate more widely. The dollar might die, but money will live on. A new generation will build wealth some other way, because the old generation is winning the money game, and... if they are allowed to fully win it they'll be left with a lot less than what they think they have. It may be due to loss of relevancy or loss of revolution.
As a resident of Switzerland... (Score:5, Informative)
I've been having plenty of discussions on the topic. It's funny, as Switzerland is probably the country that needs something like this the least. The median salary is around 75,000 USD, and although there is no global minimum salary in the law, there are sectorial conventions. The salary for a supermarket cashier starts at around $4,000 USD per month [info.rts.ch], but a gardener with technical training, for instance, will not earn less that $4,600 [jardinsuisse.ch].
It's also one of the few where citizens can change their constitution easily and directly, i.e. one of the few where this could ever happen. It won't happen this time (according to the polls), although many voters I talked to just disagree with the number, not the principle.
The BBC has a nice article on it [bbc.co.uk], showing the minimum and maximum salaries, and of course the ratio, for a few major Swiss companies. If you want to learn more about the direct aspects of Swiss democracy, the federal government publishes some information in English [www.ch.ch].
deductible idea good, ratio bad (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with the 12:1 or 20:1 ratio is that you take the mail-room guy who is earning minimum wage, and you limit the executives seven levels and thirty floors up. What'll happen is quite simply that this company won't hire any mailroom employees -- instead they'll simply contract it out. Personally, and professionally, I like that. But it won't solve your problem at all.
Not allowing a company to deduct more than 100:1 as an expense makes a lot of sense. It's also quite consistent with your laws in general -- it's not socialism at all. It simply because taxable revenue. It won't stop the executive from making the same amount as now, it'll just give you tax dollars when he does -- something that you desperately need these days.
Re:How about we force the CEO's to justify their p (Score:5, Interesting)
American CEOs usually make more money by wrecking the company for short-term gain rather than steering it towards long-term success.
The people who suffer are the people at the bottom who lose their jobs when the inevitable "downsize" comes.
This vote is a vote to break that destructive cycle not just a vote to hate on rich people.
Re:How about we force the CEO's to justify their p (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you'll have no problem finding a shareholder vote on executive pay that was binding.