Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thefinerprint t1_j5mxi7c wrote

So the CEO of a 100 person company would be paid the same as the CEO of a 100,000 person company? It would need to scale somehow.


trevor32192 t1_j5my4oo wrote

It does scale with the lowest paid worker.


Adventurous-Text-680 t1_j5n6118 wrote

You are basically arguing you feel internships should be abolished because no company would commit to hiring them.

You are also ironically pushing the idea of everyone working from home so they don't need facilities staff which tend to be unskilled labor that is low paying. This would reduce unskilled labor opportunities and place a burden on the labor market.

So software companies would be allowed to have better compensated CEOs than say a 10 person mom and pop store that needs to hire part time college students as cashiers. Assuming of course the mom and pop store can pull in enough money based on the ratio.

Furthermore you are pushing forth the idea that a newly hired person at the lowest level should be paid the same as the person with multiple years of experience otherwise reducing the CEO compensation. This would ironically lead to infighting among the workers when new hires are getting paid the same as experienced workers but not being productive.

The ratio idea basically pushes companies to not want to hire inexperienced workers and want to outsource all unskilled labor. Those consultating companies will drastically increase the cost of everything and the production costs increases.

However it misses the biggest issue. You think it will give better pay to lower paid workers but in reality they're isn't any cash for that pay in most companies without increasing the cost of goods and services. Instead you are basically telling companies they can't give as much stock to their CEO and that's about it. Lower paid workers don't want company stock and they certainly don't want the value of their compensation to be based on company performance.


trevor32192 t1_j5o3drn wrote

It's amazing that you said all that, and none of it is true or relevant. Nothing is stopping companies from having janitors, nor forcing companies to pay someone with no experience, the same as someone with 5 years experience. There is plenty of cash in most companies to pay low wage workers. If there isnt enough money in a company to fairly compensate staff then they shouldn't be in business.


Adventurous-Text-680 t1_j5s2xim wrote

I am confused because you literally mentioned that companies should limit CEOs compensation based on the lowest paying wage. I am mentioning that would not have the intended effect of reducing compensation and potentially create incentive to reduce low wage employees by outsource when possible making what your are suggesting pointless.

You can't increase pay for low wage employees unless you increase the minimum wage. That is what increases pay to ensure a livable wage not trying some round about way to limit ceo compensation.

You would be surprised to know that not all companies have enough money to keep all their employees and us why we are seeing layoffs. The problem you don't seem to understand is liquidity.


trevor32192 t1_j5t0dud wrote

Lol it doesn't limit Ceo pay it keeps a ratio. Raising the minimum wage is good until we dont do it for 30 years, and it massively falls behind.

If your company has to rely on keeping its employees in poverty, then it should fail.


Adventurous-Text-680 t1_j5thnoz wrote

You don't seem to get it.

People are willing to work low paying jobs because there will always be someone willing to work for less. Low skill jobs have a lower floor. Look at Uber drivers. Many barely make profit after you include wear and tear on their vehicle along with fuel costs. In fact, Uber eats to great then as independent contractors so they aren't even employees and dont have the same protection.

You seen to simply not understand the world. Do you really think it would be easier to pass a law limiting CEO pay by the lowest wages employee than a minimum wage increase?

You are being optimistic about how companies would get around such a law. Low waged workers will likely become contractors or the law will become average pay because no one would accept restricting one person's compensation based on someone else's compensation. It doesn't necessarily increase pay for low wage workers like you think.

It's better to actually directly help those that need to have their wage increased.

Plus what happens if you have part time employees? They get paid a lower compensation due to no health care and less vacation. Now you can't have that either which means seasonal help also becomes tough to hire depending on how the your proposed law determines "minimum compensation".


trevor32192 t1_j5ucrrh wrote

This isnt rocket science. The minimum wage is just as difficult to pass aparently because it hasn't budged in 30 years.


Adventurous-Text-680 t1_j5uslak wrote


> The 2007 amendments increased the minimum wage to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. A separate provision of the bill brings about phased increases to the minimum wages in the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands and in American Samoa, with the goal of bringing the minimum wages in those locations up to the general federal minimum wage over a number of years.

States are free to increase minimum wage as well and many do regularly.

The problem is that minimum wage usually doesn't mean livable wage and livable wage is very different based on the local cost of living for the area. NYC and DC need higher living wages than say some rural town in Alabama. It's why the federal minimum doesn't change as often.

So let's not pretend that minimum wage hasn't increased in 30 years when it's not even true federally let alone for many states. Especially when a significant portion have much higher minimum wage (some twice as much or more).


GeneralVincent t1_j5p7hxv wrote

Unpaid internships are predatory.

Working from home is generally a net positive. I'm a facilities staff. Idc if everyone works from home, cut my job. I'll find a different one. And not every job can be remote anyways.

Large software companies already have better compensated CEOs then mom and pop stores. Obviously. If a small business fails because it can't pay it's employees a fair wage, then it shouldn't exist. Or it needs less employees. (Also the point is to pay the lower level employees more, which allows those employees to have enough money to shop at that local store instead of needing to go to Walmart to save every extra dollar)

If an employee has been with the company for several years and hasn't received a raise in that time... that's really not on the new employee. Also, capping a CEOs wage does not mean everyone else just gets paid the same all of a sudden. It's lessening the gap between the lowest and highest paid worker. Everyone else in between can be (and should be) adjusted as well.

That paragraph doesn't even make sense.

Assuming there actually isn't any extra cash (even though many companies do have extra cash) then absolutely many employees would enjoy and benefit from receiving stock options. I've worked at a place that did profit sharing, and a place that gave stocks as part of the total compensation. Both times I worked as a low level employees. Both times it made me appreciate the company more, have more pride in the work I did (as I was DIRECTLY profiting of my quality of work), and most importantly I was ending up with more money. Because stocks can be sold. For money. That's why CEOs are rich.

And I'm opening to hearing alternative ideas to fix the ever widening income inequality that is destroying the economy.