What we need is a smaller maximum wage... one that would reduce

[HysteryDiagnosis]

CEO's from their godhood status, one that would not reward people as much for scratching and clawing their way to "the top".... if that truly is what it is.

[panader0]

1. Really, how many millions does it take?

I don't even have health insurance, and others can afford to fly overseas for lunch.....
I've worked hard all my life (as a bricklayer) and people who don't even work make so much more. As a matter of fact, I've noticed that basically, the harder you work, the lower you are on the money chain.

[kestrel91316]

32. "Work" - what a charming idea. Perfect for keeping the Little People

busy so they don't notice how the Important People are screwing them nine ways from Sunday.

And manual labor is for peons, didn't you know? No self-respecting American should EVER work with their hands!

[stellanoir]

2. Wages have not been as disproportinate

to boss's salaries since the not so Great Depression or even moreso the regretable g-d awful days of slavery.

Essentially, what we have now is nothing less than corporate slavery.

With every piece of legislation benefitting the wealthy and disempowering the middle class and the poor even moreso, we have never been so bereft of a truly representative legislature. Ever.

Damn those voting machines as they prevent conventional wisdom from prevailing. They truly suck.

Limited maximum wage indeed. We gotta put the clamp on these dudes. They're robbing folks blind. It hurts the greater good and they don't give a flying flop about it.

Have a nice day anyway.

[Warpy]

3. What we need is the progressive income tax back

because that provided a great disincentive to greed for many decades until Ronbo got rid of it.

Income tax was never meant to fall heavily on labor. It was always meant to fall most heavily upon the people who benefited the most from what this country has to offer--the wealthy. The destruction of the progressive tax system stated with Kennedy, who unwisely dropped the top rate from 90% to 70%, giving men like Scaife enough play money to buy the government.

There is nothing to destroy the rabid acquisition of wealth beyond all one's needs like taxing the surplus away. There is nothing to wreck the wealthy's delusion of recreating an inherited aristocracy like making sure their brats won't inherit enough to qualify, only enough to keep themselves idle should they choose to.

After all, the lesson of history is clear. Look at France. If they won't share and they won't accept being taxed into reasonableness, the peasants have to kill them.

[sgxnk]

7. do u

do u think that we should actually have a 90% income tax rate

for ANY bracket?

[Warpy]

11. I'd like to see an all out confiscatory tax

for those robber barons looting corporations to the tune of multi millions of dollars a year.

[Bill McBlueState]

53. do you understand what that means?

90% is a marginal rate, meaning 90% of all one's income above a certain level goes to taxes. It does not mean that 90% of one's entire income goes to taxes.

Usually when people are surprised by the tax rates that were pretty common until 1960, it's because they don't understand that distinction.

[kestrel91316]

33. You won't hear me disagreeing with this:

"Look at France. If they won't share and they won't accept being taxed into reasonableness, the peasants have to kill them."

[Gormy Cuss]

4. Wages aren't the problem. It's other compensation deals

made without regard to how the company performs, or that create an incentive for the CEO to act in his own best interests at the cost of rank and file employees, golden parachutes for short term CEOs and all the other ridiculous deals made to secure this over priced management. That some CEOs are compensated in the millions for failing to meet goals is the most obscene part of the whole sorry story.

[sgxnk]

5. that is just so wrong

sorry. i am all for raising the minimum wage

but the moment that govt. can tell business what the caps on a salary is, we have headed way too far down a road of govt. controlled business

and that's not good

[ThomCat]

8. I think any corporation that pays it's CEO hundreds of times

more than it's average full time wage should be deemed in violation of its corporate charter. After all, corporations are chartered by state governments in part to fullfill some public good. Sucking money upward at rediculous levels into executive pockets doesn't benefit anyone but the executive.

I think charters need to be policed more heavily for financial malfeasance and environmental responsibility, and charters need to start getting revoked.

[sgxnk]

10. states aren't

states aren't and shouldn't be in the business (so to speak) of deciding what businesses are and aren't "in the public good"

that is the job of the marketplace

take mcdonalds. if you don't like it, don't eat there. but it aint the job of govt. to decide they are or aren't in the public good

or any other company

any person (you included) can open their own business. thankfully, we don't have some sort of orwellian bureau that gets to decide whose business is in the 'public good' and whose isn't

it's up to your business to convince the CUSTOMERS that you are in their good. then, they become your customers.

that is how capitalism works

[ThomCat]

13. Of course they should be.

Take a look at the history of Incorporation. Corporations are granted a lot of privilage by states, and damned well should return something for what they get.

The idea that corporations are entirely independent is wrong and should be smacked down hard.

[sgxnk]

15. um...

incorporated companies are owned by the SHAREHOLDERS

i am not saying that corporations are entirely independant

they answer to their shareholders

[ThomCat]

31. Owned by shareholders, but chartered by states.

And they cannot exist without a state charter. States have not excercised their authority over corporations, but by law they have authority over corporations.

[sgxnk]

36. yes

when they incorporate they cease to become rpivate and the state has additional jurisdiction

i am not arguing here that the state does not have AUTHORITY to do this stuff

i am saying they shouldn't

[ThomCat]

38. And I'm disagreeing with you.

We've seen how well a laissez-faire attitude towards corporations has worked.

States have abdicated their authority, and it's time to start excercising it instead. Corporations have too much influence, and impact on all of society to be regulated only by shareholders. Maximizing profit cannot be their only legal mandate.

[sgxnk]

39. but again

these are strawmen

nobody is arguing LAISSEZ-faire here

the issue is HOW much regulation is "ok"

that's all

[ThomCat]

44. I'm not arguing about Laissez faire. That's what we've had.

And I'm arguing that it's time for it to end. You may not know anything about corporate charters, but every corporation has one. And they are issued by the states. States used to put clauses in those charters stating that corporations had to be re-chartered periodically, and they had to defend their existence to the state to be re-chartered.

It's a good idea that should be resumed.

Stated are not required to simply rubber-stamp any application for a charter, and there is no reason why they should be perpetual. There is no reason why a state cannot specify in a charter than a corporation must contribute to the public good in order to maintain their charter.

Charters are a privilage, not a right. Corporations should be required to earn them.

[blonndee]

51. Thank you for pointing this out. The current popular idea about

what corporations are and their (lack of) social responsibility is very different from how corporations initially functioned. I agree with you completely. If corporations are going to continue to profit from the public, they should contribute to the PUBLIC good as well.

[kestrel91316]

35. Corporations answer to their shareholders????

I want some of what you've been smoking.

Corporate bigwigs do as they wish. They rob from their shareholders just as surely as they rob from their victims - errrrr, customers.

[ThomCat]

46. Very true. They only answer to their major shareholders.

And major shareholders tend to be the people (or organizations) who get most of their income from owning those shares, so they have no incentive to make corporations pay attention to anything except short term profit.

Shareholder lawsuits push corporations to make profit their primary focus, above long term sustainable business practices, above loyalty or generousity to employees, and certainly above responsibility for any cost/harm that can be pushed onto the general public.

[union_maid]

14. Doesn't have to be a salary cap

It could be a ratio. Executive compensation can't exceed so many times the average worker's pay, or the lowest paid worker's salary. Something along those lines. Companies would be free to raise worker pay in order to compensate their CEO's more highly. Sometimes fairness has had to be legislated. This could be one of them.

[sgxnk]

16. i disagree

but that's ok

i don't think the govt. should have that authority

that is a 'remedy worse than the disease'

[union_maid]

19. Ok, but for the sake of debate, why?

I think the Democratic view was, and should be again, that government's role is to provide some regulation to business. Where real unfairness exists, government should act for the people to remediate that situation.

[sgxnk]

25. both dems and repubs

both dems and repubs believe govt. has a role in regulating business

the differences lie in the extent of same, the justifications for same, etc.

now certainly, there are some repubs (and most libertarians) who believe govt. has NO role in regulating wages e.g. most libertarians don't believe the govt. should have the authority to set a minimum wage

setting a maximum wage is one of the most anti-capitalist, anti-invention and authoritarian ideas i can think of

talent goes, generally, where the money is.

among other reasons, if companies cannot compete for talent (which would be the case with salary caps), then the competitive market for talent would cease to exist

i make my $$$ trading futures. but i also invest in some stocks. and i can tell you as an investor that there are few things more important than management.

perfect example : Steve Jobs and PIXR. Steve Jobs and AAPL etc.

shareholders of a public corp have the right to vote to change salaries. customers have the right not to buy a product from a company that overpays a CEO. but allowing govt. into the equation kills the marketplace

[union_maid]

28. The marketplace is not worker friendly.

Pushing wages down has been the priority of business since the Reagan years. The march of wealth upward has been going on since then. It's got to stop. I can tell you as an employee, clueless management gets paid very well, just like talented management, and the workers are paying the price. Shareholders aren't interested in workers. Customers can't be depended on for support. Greed is not good when it's this far out of hand. I think it is absolutely the proper role of government to step in and just say that you can pay your CEO billions, but if you're a publicly owned company, then you must pay workers a given percentage of that amount. You can't have unfettered capitalism and economic justice. You have to choose one or the other.

[sgxnk]

30. the marketplace

is not a friendly place.

that much is true. as for clueless management getting paid well. see: the peter principle

http://www.bartleby.com/61/4/P0220400.html

but as to the main point, imo it is NOT the proper (imo) rolle of govt. to tell companies what they can or can't pay CEO's

as for unfeterred capitalism, that's a strawman. we don't have anything NEAR unfettered capitalism.

for that matter, there are other nations whose capitalism is less "fettered" than ours

but regardless, we don't have it, nor am i arguing for it

we all draw lines at how far govt. authority should go. personally, i think govt. regulating maximum wages is TOO far.

we obviously disagree

[union_maid]

37. We do

I'm trying to figure out why. It seems so clear that shareholders aren't going to do it. Customers aren't going to do it. Huge CEO pay is hurting workers, hurting the consumer base, hurting everyone who isn't actually wealthy. Real income is going down for the average worker. Even the DLC admits that. So why not try to fix it? If all companies had to comply with this, that levels the playing field. I'm sure you can find plenty of talent for only a few million a year each. Maybe more talent when you eliminate the rockstar mentality.

People made the argument that it was wrong to force businesses to hire blacks at one time. It wasn't the role of government they said. Sometimes the best thing government can do is force the right thing on business, which then frees up businesses which prefer to do the right thing to go ahead and do it.

[sgxnk]

40. these are excellent points

cheers. i do not necessarily agree with them, but they are food for thought

and that's the purpose of political discussion imo. broadening minds and reassessing positions based on data, and clear arguments

cheers

[union_maid]

41. Well, thanks

That's more than reasonable. Actually, the DLC said one if its focuses would be to "shine a light" on CEO compensation. I don't see this as becoming law or regulation any time soon. I do, however, hope that we can return to at least a goal of a little more economic fairness in this country before I'm dead. At least in my kids' lifetimes.

[sgxnk]

45. yw nt

[omega minimo]

20. hey look who it is!

:hi:

[omega minimo]

17. oh yes business-controlled government is sOOOooo much better

:sarcasm: :evilfrown: :sarcasm:



"but the moment that govt. can tell business what the caps on a salary is, we have headed way too far down a road of govt. controlled business
and that's not good"

[sgxnk]

18. who said it was?

[omega minimo]

22. what u think u got now?

[sgxnk]

26. oh no

mccain-feingold fixed everything!

(rolls eyes)

[zalinda]

24. Owners of business would be able to make

as much as they wanted, they own the company. But, when the company goes public there should be ceilings in place.

zalinda

[sgxnk]

27. i agree

the ceilings can be set by the SHAREHOLDERS

they own public companies

NOT govt.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

34. Right now, business is telling the government what to do with the

lives of our sons and daughters.... which is worse?

[OnionPatch]

54. I have to agree and yet

I think there needs to be some careful consideration into the reason that one individual should be able to accumulate such gross sums of money while others grovel in the dirt to keep food on the table. There is an imbalance somewhere, something very wrong in the system. I don't think caps are the answer but certainly some fundamental changes need to be made in the way America people work and get paid.

[Vidar]

6. Amen to that.

[Protagoras]

9. Doesn't the EU do this?

a cap on executive salary based on the average wage of their employees?

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who vote for and scream the most for massive wealth accumulation are ususally those who also claim to be Christians. Strange how that eye of a needle thing never really seems to matter to them. But then again neither does health care, education, or most other aspects of basic human decency.

Maybe if we all just delute ourselves into thinking we can ALL become President and win the lottery and have 100 billion dollars it'll all seem ok.

[SensibleAmerican]

43. No

n/t

[Protagoras]

49. Thanks for elaborating?

I know it's at least been debated several times. So if it isn't legislated on some level what else accounts for the dramatically lower ratio of CEO Compensation compared to the average worker as opposed to that in the US? Last I remember it was like 40 to 1 in Europe and around 200 to 1 in the US.

If it's purely stockholder or public pressure that's doing this over there then we need to figure out how to import it.

[blogslut]

12. I would rather we make corporations pay their taxes

If they operate out of this country, then no more of this hinky offshore loophole crap. If they operate out of this country then they have to hire a certain percentge of American workers. If they are turning a profit, no more corporate welfare. Also, none of this "corporations are legally individuals" bullcaca either.

[ThomCat]

47. Corporate taxation is a huge, related problem.

A lot of the largest corporations pay $0 in taxes, and then get huge (multi-million dollar) refunds from the state. Accountants have found a way to turn taxes into a Profit Center for businesses. That clearly should be illegal.

I don't think tax give-aways for corporations are a good idea either. Corporations routinely demand tax breaks, zoning changes, and a lot of perks paid for with tax money. Often they promise to provide jobs, and sometimes they promise high paying jobs in exchange for all of this. The idea is that the sales and income tax revenue generated by those jobs will make up for the give-away. I've yet to see a corporation keep those promises. Often they take the give-aways and create no additional jobs, or the jobs they create are minimum wage and actually increase the area's tax burder (in public assistance, emergency room funding, etc.).

The alternative minimum tax had hurt a lot of middle class people. It should apply to corporations, not people.

[annabanana]

21. Tie the highest wage to a specific multiple of the lowest....

If the CEO wants more money, he has to raise the wages of all his workers by the same percentage...
(stock options and other fancy perks and "non-wage" salary would be computed in)

[union_maid]

29. that's what I think

That's what I was saying. It's the most flexible solution for businesses that addresses fairness for workers.

[omega minimo]

23. Democrats must raise this point when working on the minimum wage issue

in Congress!!!!! :bounce:

[savemefromdumbya]

42. CEOS would just disappear abroad

some clause that they can't escape

[RB TexLa]

48. Any idea where you would set a maximum wage?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

50. 100x that of a blue collar worker. I think 2000 dollars an hour

would suffice the needs of most sane Americans.

[Sydnie]

52. I saw an interview with the CEO of Costco

Jim, the guy that started the company. He said his salary, which is $350,000 a year, was 12 times the amount that he pays his average employees. He said he thought that was fair.

Seems like that might be a good place to start.

It was a very interesting interview. He travels to different stores everyday because, as he said, people that never see the boss think the boss doesn't care about them or their store. He wears a name tag with just his first name on it, just like the "regular" employees. He walks around the store and talks to the employees, calls them by name and engages them in discussions, not just about the store but about them and their lives outside of the store.

They also pointed out that the large majority of their promotions happen from within and that their turnover rate for employees is incredibly low. They pay higher than usual wages, give a good benefits package and they treat their employees as one of the family.

Jim answers his own office phone, sends his own fax's, and the shot of his office shows that he considers it a work space, not a show place.

Give us more CEO/owners like that and we just might stand a chance of surviving with our dignity in tact.

[TooMuch]

55. A quick maximum wage history

The notion of a "maximum wage" actually has roots deep in American history.

The maximum wage idea appears to have first surfaced with Felix Adler, the social philosopher who founded the Ethical Culture movement. Back in 1880, amid America's first Gilded Age, Adler proposed a top marginal income tax rate of 100 percent, in effect an income cap.

World War I would see a broad citizen's campaign for just such a cap, led by Amos Pinchot, an attorney whose brother Gifford helped establish conservationism in the United States. Pinchot's group called for a 100 percent tax on all income over $100,000. Maverick publisher E. W. Scripps, founder of what would become the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain, urged a 100 percent tax on all income over $50,000.

During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt picked up where Scripps left off. In 1942, FDR called for a 100 percent tax on all individual income over $25,000, about $315,000 or so in today's dollars. Congress didn't buy FDR's cap, but lawmakers did go on to set the top marginal rate at 94 percent on income over $200,000, and that top rate would hover around 90 percent until 1964, years that would see the greatest period of middle class prosperity in U.S. history.

These days, maximum wage advocates are talking about income caps as multiples of income minimums. One step in this direction would be passage of Rep. Martin Sabo's Income Equity Act, legislation that would prevent corporations from deducting off their taxes any executive compensation that runs over 25 times the pay of a company's lowest-paid worker.

The full text of a recent book that discusses all this is now available to read free online through the Apex Press, a nonprofit New York publisher. Check www.greedandgood.org.