A maximum wage?

[Crezth]

You would love it if companies fired their low-paid employees and moved those jobs overseas?

Not at all. What lead you to that complete and utter disconnect?

 

[Rashiminos]

Not at all. What lead you to that complete and utter disconnect?

If you pegged maximum wages by ratio to the lowest wages, those companies with certain ethics will change the qualifying low wages to suit the high wages (by moving jobs which pay less to areas where they can get away with it, ie subsidiaries).

 

[amadeus]

Not at all. What lead you to that complete and utter disconnect?

The "disconnect" is recognizing that actions have consequnces, and a law like this would have consequnces. You think the business guys are just going to bend over and take it? They have the means, thankfully, to escape from this kookocracy.

 

[Crezth]

If you pegged maximum wages by ratio to the lowest wages, those companies with certain ethics will change the qualifying low wages to suit the high wages (by moving jobs which pay less to areas where they can get away with it, ie subsidiaries).

Solution: Make the maximum wage twenty times the minimum wage.

BUT WAIT-

The "disconnect" is recognizing that actions have consequnces, and a law like this would have consequnces. You think the business guys are just going to bend over and take it? They have the means, thankfully, to escape from this kookocracy.

OH NO! Tell me please, what democracy freedomland will they escape to? Galt's Gulch, mayhap?

edit: Actually, I am interested to hear why you think the average CEO deserves 400 times the compensation of the average laborer.

 

[amadeus]

Canada, the Bahamas, the UK, or Australia? Places where they don't have loony executive pay caps?

 

[Crezth]

Canada, the Bahamas, the UK, or Australia? Places where they don't have loony executive pay caps?

Canada: Higher corporate tax rates onoooo
The Bahamas: Excellent industrial base so this would be a great choice.
The UK: Higher corporate tax rates onoooo
Australia: OK, I'll grant you that one

 

[amadeus]

The Bahamas: Excellent industrial base so this would be a great choice.

You need a lot of heavy machinery to support guys in suits? I'm talking about moving the high-level executives.

 

[Crezth]

You need a lot of heavy machinery to support guys in suits? I'm talking about moving the high-level executives.

I thought you were talking about moving the businesses wholesale. I don't see how just moving the execs would skirt this issue.

 

[amadeus]

I thought you were talking about moving the businesses wholesale. I don't see how just moving the execs would skirt this issue.

Well, the market would ultimately work it out, whether it is moving production overseas, increasing mechanization and laying off low skill workers, or whatever. There would be away around it, even if it means American businesses fold under these (unconstitutional) laws that stifle American competitiveness. It would be as futile as trying to get Congress to write a law to regulate next week's weather.

 

[Crezth]

Well, the market would ultimately work it out, whether it is moving production overseas, increasing mechanization and laying off low skill workers, or whatever. There would be away around it, even if it means American businesses fold under these (unconstitutional) laws that stifle American competitiveness. It would be as futile as trying to get Congress to write a law to regulate next week's weather.

I'm honestly curious how you explain that there are other countries that are also economically successful with much smaller income gaps.

I want you to explain to me how income gaps don't generate political marginalization of the lower classes.

And I want you to explain to me why corporate executives deserve so much money.

I'm not being disingenuous here, I really want to know. Forcing executives to accept only 30 times that of a worker is an extreme case, and not a sensible law in the least, but what do you think of measures that would tie executive compensation to corporate success? How do you justify unfettered markets when the trend seems to be for people to fail utterly but ultimately still be set for life thanks to tremendous executive compensation?

edit: And no magic hand-waving "the market will sort it out" as that kind of nonsense has no place in actual economics discussion.

 

[Arwon]

Canada, the Bahamas, the UK, or Australia? Places where they don't have loony executive pay caps?

We do, however, have a civilised minimum wage, a regulated industrial relations system and some actual strong unions. We also have fairly conservative finance and banking regulations, and generally lower executive pay (possibly due to stronger corporate governance, financial disclosure and shareholder rights rules).

And if the US passed such a executive pay law you can bet the model would spread

Short version: people don't really offshore here for the low wages or massive executive salaries, yo.

 

[amadeus]

edit: And no magic hand-waving "the market will sort it out" as that kind of nonsense has no place in actual economics discussion.

So I must accept your view that income disparity is this great problem and thus requires some kind of coercive solution, yet prohibited from offering my beliefs and, where necessary, supplying evidence to support them?

Nope!

 

[warpus]

Canada, the Bahamas, the UK, or Australia? Places where they don't have loony executive pay caps?

In Canada they'd be paid in loonies

just sayin..

 

[woody60707]

So what's to stop someone to just "moving" to Mexico and commuting to his office in the US for the work week?

I'm honestly curious how you explain that there are other countries that are also economically successful with much smaller income gaps.

I want you to explain to me how income gaps don't generate political marginalization of the lower classes.

And I want you to explain to me why corporate executives deserve so much money.

I'm not being disingenuous here, I really want to know. Forcing executives to accept only 30 times that of a worker is an extreme case, and not a sensible law in the least, but what do you think of measures that would tie executive compensation to corporate success? How do you justify unfettered markets when the trend seems to be for people to fail utterly but ultimately still be set for life thanks to tremendous executive compensation?

edit: And no magic hand-waving "the market will sort it out" as that kind of nonsense has no place in actual economics discussion.

You want a lot in this world, don't you?

 

[Crezth]

So I must accept your view that income disparity is this great problem and thus requires some kind of coercive solution, yet prohibited from offering my beliefs and, where necessary, supplying evidence to support them?

Nope!

With a single brilliant stroke, you have excused yourself from the conversation.

Incredible. I guess you don't find income disparity to be a problem, then? And you also believe the market will solve everything even though this is patently untrue?

You want a lot in this world, don't you?

Don't know how to respond to this.

I guess the answer is yes.

 

[Leonel]

You would love it if companies fired their low-paid employees and moved those jobs overseas?

Oh like what they've been doing for the past 30 years?

 

[Yeekim]

I'm curious how the defenders of the 1% justify something like this.

I´m curious why you so persistently want to tear this gap even larger.

 

[Hygro]

Luiz is correct and I'm frustrated that people are largely ignoring his point that wages are not the primary source of economic inequality between the super rich, the rich, and the rest, but rather capital accumulation is.

You can achieve capital accumulation through wages, but more often through other forms of compensation.

 

[Mise]

Yeah and that's why football is so uneven and boring with the same teams winning year-in-year-out.

Uneven, yes, but boring?!?! How can you possibly say that the EPL is a boring league?! It has some of the best players in the world, playing against the best players in the world. The outcome may be more or less predictable for certain low-ranking teams for the season as a whole, but that hardly matters when the football that is played is easily the best in the world. I don't care that the competition for the winner is really only between 6 or so teams, because those 6 teams are more exciting to watch than the World Cup final, and they play every week rather than ever 4 years. Even the low ranking teams are more exciting and more talented than the vast majority of international matches.

Seriously, who gives a crap who wins the league? If you just want to masturbate over the results then you don't need to follow football to do that - any boringass competition in the world will do. I thought we were interested in the game, not the results...

P.S. this post may seem off topic, but there is an analogy lurking in there too...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Well, I know I'm not interested in (athletic) games. At one point I had some minor interest in the statistics related to sports, but that died when I took by first course in statistics.