CEO to Worker Pay Ratios for S&P 500 Companies
CEO to Worker Pay Ratios for S&P 500 Companies
79 comments
-
The ratio between lowest paid and highest paid employee, in all forms of payment and benefits, to all employees (including contractors), should be capped. I'm thinking a ratio somewhere around 1:5 or so.
Have an employee paid only 20k per year? Congrats on your 100k salary Mr. CEO.
-
Agreed. Btw it is “paid”. “Payed” is a different word entirely. English is weird.
-
Fuck English, but I fixed my comment
-
-
to all employees (including contractors)
Might aswell just make it a multiple of the minimum wage, because somewhere in the chain there will always be someone scrubbing toilets earning next to nothing. Or you end up incentivizing complex structures that try to avoid this cap somehow.
That said i don't think this is the right solution anyways, since it only targets income and not wealth. As long as profit gets made it has to end up somewhere. And i feel like it is much more likely to end up in the owners pockets, than resulting in higher wages. It's similar to how the salaries of successful actors/athletes are obscene, but the alternative would be that the studio/club just makes more profit.
So the more important issue would be to improve mechanisms that redistribute money, from whereever large amounts of wealth accumulate. Like a wealth tax or higher inheritance taxes (or just closing all loopholes that help avoid/reduce it).
However i would definitely also support a higher maximum taxation rate for the super high earners.
-
Or you end up incentivizing complex structures that try to avoid this cap somehow.
They already do that with hiring employees as contractors, which is why I mentioned it. Any employee they hire gets counted.
That said i don’t think this is the right solution anyways, since it only targets income and not wealth.
Hence why I said payment in any form. That includes benefits, PTO, stocks, everything. The rich still have other shenanigans they pull, sure. But this would at least solve the problem on a salary level.
And i feel like it is much more likely to end up in the owners pockets, than resulting in higher wages.
Agreed, which is why the stock market needs to end. It's the primary means by which they rob the working class.
So the more important issue would be to improve mechanisms that redistribute money, from whereever large amounts of wealth accumulate. Like a wealth tax or higher inheritance taxes (or just closing all loopholes that help avoid/reduce it).
I'd recommend looking into a land value tax system.
-
-
The government could incentivize this by a tax formula. Highest paid employee divided by lowest paid employee sets the payroll tax rate for the whole business.
-
Nah, companies found in violation of this should have their business licenses revoked, and the company dissolved.
They don't give a shit about taxes or fines. They will care about the company ceasing to exist.
-
They could, but a lot of idiot children decided not to support the party that would have done that because unnamed randos on the interwebs told them not to. So that's not going to happen. Again.
-
Not sure exactly which country you’re referring to, but in the USA the Democratic Party absolutely would not do that, which is precisely why they lost. If they had accepted the popularity of Bernie Sanders in 2016, maybe. But the party decided not to go that direction.
Their next presidential nominee is probably Gavin Newsom, who grew up in private school and best friends with Oil money billionaires - the Getty family.
-
This is so fucking tiresome.
-
I concur
-
-
-
-
-
I think 5 is maybe an over-ambitious goal.
I don't really mind a 50:1 cap, or even a 100:1 cap. I can understand how experienced leadership of a large scale multinational corporation should be compensated more than 5x the amount of a 16 year old part time cashier in a town of 2200 people.
Even think about it from an age demographic/experience point of view. How much more should someone make doing the same job for 40 years than the new hire with no experience? In a lot of fields, I don't feel like it would be unfair for that scale to go 4:1. Now factor that into the consideration of the varying different positions, the ratio has got to be higher.
And in the face of abhorrent 2100:1 ratios, I think a 100:1 ratio is low enough to make a meaningful difference and high enough that no one can sensibly argue against it.
-
I think 5 is maybe an over-ambitious goal.
Maybe, but I'm OK with being ambitious.
I can understand how experienced leadership of a large scale multinational corporation should be compensated more than 5x the amount of a 16 year old part time cashier in a town of 2200 people.
I can't. Large scale multination corporations shouldn't exist. But that's a separate issue ultimately.
How much more should someone make doing the same job for 40 years than the new hire with no experience? In a lot of fields, I don’t feel like it would be unfair for that scale to go 4:1.
A company hiring somebody with 40 years of experience should be paying towards the higher end of the 1:5 ratio. It would ensure far more of the wealth goes to those who actually provide value.
-
If you want 100:1 you start negotiating at 1:1
-
This person negotiates.
-
-
-
79 comments