Current Events > How about we just tie CEO/Upper Management pay to their workers

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like the highest paid position in a company cant be X% more than the lowest paid position in the company. Including bonuses and whatnot. So if the CEO wants more money he is obligated to pay his employees more. If the CEO wants a $300 million bonus or $300 million in stocks or something, the lowest paid person in the company also gets X%

Because talk like that usually winds up with them being spirited away by the CEOs' fixers.

Lots of executives going to quit and become independent consultants

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Lots of executives going to quit and become independent consultants

Have a mandatory tax for consultants or non-employees, part time/casual employees etc. make it cheaper to insource

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Have a mandatory tax for consultants or non-employees, part time/casual employees etc. make it cheaper to insource

I think to set it high enough to make the X% a more profitable option you would have to set the tax high enough to basically wipe out all contracting. And even though contracting is often used as a loophole for things, there are actually tasks and jobs that are better suited to contracting.

The problem is many of the biggest CEOs get paid almost nothing. Steve Jobs famously worked for a dollar a year. Jeff Bezos has had the same salary of $80k a year with no stock options since he started amazon. For some of these folks their wealth is significantly driven by the value of the stock they hold and sell. That makes it significantly more difficult to try and link pay like that.

Anteaterking posted...

there are actually tasks and jobs that are better suited to contracting.

imagine having to set up FICA and a 401k to have someone unclog a sink.

Anteaterking posted...

I think to set it high enough to make the X% a more profitable option you would have to set the tax high enough to basically wipe out all contracting. And even though contracting is often used as a loophole for things, there are actually tasks and jobs that are better suited to contracting.

If they are better suited to contracting (I.e. a small amount of highly skilled work that you dont have enough of to justify insourcing) then they will still do it. Contracting is used as a loophole too much to make it easy for the rare company that does it the right way

s0nicfan posted...

The problem is many of the biggest CEOs get paid almost nothing. Steve Jobs famously worked for a dollar a year. Jeff Bezos has had the same salary of $80k a year with no stock options since he started amazon. For some of these folks their wealth is significantly driven by the value of the stock they hold and sell. That makes it significantly more difficult to try and link pay like that.

Theres no way some of the richest people alive have basically no income. Find out what technicality they are using and block it.

Steve Jobs' salary was $1,000 a year so this suggestion is functionally meaningless.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Steve Jobs' salary was $1,000 a year so this suggestion is functionally meaningless.

Just googled it and he was worth $250 mil by the time he was 25. Im calling the BS here

Kloe_Rinz posted...

Theres no way some of the richest people alive have basically no income. Find out what technicality they are using and block it.

The "technicality" is they actually aren't making that money. It's not real money. It's the value of the stock they own going up. When Disney bought lucasfilm in some mega billion dollar transaction only a few million of it was paid in cash. The rest was paid with Disney stock.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The "technicality" is they actually aren't making that money. It's not real money. It's the value of the stock they own going up. When Disney bought lucasfilm in some mega billion dollar transaction only a few million of it was paid in cash. The rest was paid with Disney stock.

They arent buying cars and mansions and yachts on $1000 a year. Call it a technicality or whatever but its not acceptable

Kloe_Rinz posted...

They arent buying cars and mansions and yachts on $1000 a year. Call it a technicality or whatever but its not acceptable

It's not acceptable but it also has nothing to do with what they're being paid. They're not being paid really. The value of the shit they already own keeps going up.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Steve Jobs' salary was $1,000 a year so this suggestion is functionally meaningless.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The "technicality" is they actually aren't making that money. It's not real money. It's the value of the stock they own going up. When Disney bought lucasfilm in some mega billion dollar transaction only a few million of it was paid in cash. The rest was paid with Disney stock.

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's not acceptable but it also has nothing to do with what they're being paid. They're not being paid really. The value of the shit they already own keeps going up.

That boot must be reeeeeeeeeeeally delicious.

TheChariot posted...

That boot must be reeeeeeeeeeeally delicious.

He's not bootlicking, he's pointing out that these people literally specialize in avoiding having their money classed as "income". Pointing out a problem with your idea does not mean they support the opposing side from you, it just means your idea of how to address the problem has a (perceived, at least) flaw.

TheChariot posted...

That boot must be reeeeeeeeeeeally delicious.

Don't mistake my explanations for approval.

Don't mind Chariot, he thought he saw a fellow bootlicker and took the opportunity to project.

Smells like Communism, TC