Republicans call it class warfare, Liberals call it fairness.

[LC EFA]

The idea that any cap should be imposed what people can ask for or receive as a return on their labor or investment, Is like running a 200 yard sprint, while demanding the contestants run at a defined speed. Run any faster and you'll be disqualified.

ItNerd4life  (450 posts) Fri Mar-13-09 01:45 PM
Original message
Republicans call it class warfare, Liberals call it fairness.
   
How do we combat greed from executives?
I think there are 2 things we could do that might make things more fair:

1) I like the idea of executive pay caps where the executive pay is tied to the average salary of people
who work within the company or any of it's child companies (maybe foreign companies as well?). However, there would have to be some type
of exemption or separate rule for small business owners who actually own the business.

2) I like the idea of a living wage, but don't see how it could be implemented or what the rules would be.
Also, would a living wage negate the need for unions?

Would love to hear what other people think on these subjects.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5247456

I have been trying to work out what they mean by "executives" when they speak on this. I strongly suspect it means anyone that earns more than they do.

hamsterjill  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Fri Mar-13-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. I like your #1
   
Are you thinking something along the lines of where the exec's pay couldn't be more than "x"% of the lowest paid company employee?

So if a CEO wanted to give himself a 10% raise, he'd basically have to give everyone a 10% raise? Hmmm...interesting thinking.

Of course I see pros and cons, but I like the basic concept. The devil would be in the details, of course, like the definition of "employee" versus temporary workers, etc., and the use of any merit type pay for those who perform above and beyond the expectations. Surely there would be abuses, but I'm interested in what others might think about this concept.

Now apply that logic to regular salaries. You can only ever earn 10% more than the lowest paied employee in the company. The janitor probably gets 20K, meaning that no one else in the company can earn more than 22K, from the receptionist to the accountant / senior management.

Doesn't sound quite so "fair" now does it ?

Nick at Noon  (72 posts)  Fri Mar-13-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I agree with the idea, also.    Updated at 5:11 PM
   
exec's pay couldn't be more than "x"% of the lowest paid company employee?

But what would be a fair multiplier ? I'd suggest more than 10, but less than 30.

If the lowest wage paid is $20,000 a year -- the top exec should make between $200,000 and $600,000. No stock options. Because they are a fraud -- and a way of letting the little suckers who put their money in the stock market pay his salary.

Less than 30% more. Then you go on to say the top exec should make 1000% of the lowest paid worker. Perhaps you should rethink this.

Spike89  (287 posts) Fri Mar-13-09 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Not a bad start
   
Don't worry about privately-owned businesses, simply set these rules as part of the incorporation terms for corporate officers. I would also add that bonuses and dividends also be tied to the entire workforce, i.e., if the CEO gets a bonus equal to half his/her salary, then everyone in the company gets 1/2 their salary as a bonus. In addition to some steep tax penalties for off-shore hiring/manufacturing, I'd also love to see a provision mandating a) matching layoffs, i.e., if 20% of labor is downsized, management takes a 20% hit and executive management also takes a 20% hit in pay.

Living wage laws certainly would not negate the need for unions, any more than minimum wage laws do now. Labor issues are much more complex than simple salary. Discrimination, working conditions, standards, and benefits are some of the things unions battle management on. Without unions, even with a living wage law, we'd have trouble holding onto the 40 hour week, anti-discrimination clauses, safety and child exploitation regulations.

With business sense like that, I hope you're prepared for a life of scrubbing greasy pots for a living.

[Georgia Bulldog]

If they took an Economics classed they probably used it for nap time or something to that effect.

[Texacon]

Nick at Noon  (72 posts)  Fri Mar-13-09 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I agree with the idea, also.    Updated at 5:11 PM
   
exec's pay couldn't be more than "x"% of the lowest paid company employee?

But what would be a fair multiplier ? I'd suggest more than 10, but less than 30.

If the lowest wage paid is $20,000 a year -- the top exec should make between $200,000 and $600,000. No stock options. Because they are a fraud -- and a way of letting the little suckers who put their money in the stock market pay his salary.

And this, my friends, is why 99.99999999999% of DUmmies don't own or run companies.

KC

[Strider]

Last time I ckecked this aint Russia and American business has not been nationalized so....who is going to make up these rules and better yet who will enforce them? I know ...if it doesnt go thier way they will just quit, but wait...they dont have or want a job.........

[USA4ME]

And this, my friends, is why 99.99999999999% of DUmmies don't own or run companies.

KC

Bingo!

If this is what they want to do, they need to lead by example and demonstrate to everyone how well this works by actually starting and then modeling their own business in this manner for at least 20 years, then point to how "successful" it is.

I'm too busy to list all the reasons they wouldn't even dare try to do it, much less be able to make it happen.

.

[jukin]

Well today was the final straw for this small business owner.  I have put food on the table for fifty+ people over the last 27 years. I run a company that sells specialized equipment to the international market.  the money I bring in is a net plus to the USA and more importantly, since we sell to many other parts of the USA, a net plus to california.  for the last ten years, it has been more of a struggle to keep up and in compliance with regulations, fees, taxes... than selling, designing, and manufacturing our equipment. No a big part of why I put in huge hours, risk my money, and put up with all the shit is to prove I can make a go of it along with making some money. I think I mentioned that I had been keeping some emplo....exploited people on even though economic times are hard and the climate is worse hoping to see a business friendly or even business even decision out of sacto. 

When the last BS budget went through I, that day let go of two people.  I had kept them on longer than business sense told me to but did anyway.  Now I learn that caliiifonia is now another 8 BILLION IN DEBT past the previous 42 for a total 50 B or ONE HALF THE TOTAL ****ING BUDGET.. Judging from what just happened I hold zero hope that spending will be cut (BTW there have been ZERO state employees laid off...NONE.) and only taxes increased, fees increased, and regulation increased to increase fines.  Although I was considering moving my business to Havasu but I am pushing off the yoke of responsibility.  I will be informing my empoye...exploited people that there will be no new contracts pursued.  The buy offs of the in-house projects will be the end of the company and that's it.  I don't need government hassle, employee apathy, and higher taxes on my hard work.  So thanks liberal politicians california and the USA can kiss off another manufacturing business to Japan, Taiwan, or china.  I'm going to take a break and just charge big fees to service the equipment out in the field.

[rich_t]

Well today was the final straw for this small business owner.  I have put food on the table for fifty+ people over the last 27 years. I run a company that sells specialized equipment to the international market.  the money I bring in is a net plus to the USA and more importantly, since we sell to many other parts of the USA, a net plus to california.  for the last ten years, it has been more of a struggle to keep up and in compliance with regulations, fees, taxes... than selling, designing, and manufacturing our equipment. No a big part of why I put in huge hours, risk my money, and put up with all the shit is to prove I can make a go of it along with making some money. I think I mentioned that I had been keeping some emplo....exploited people on even though economic times are hard and the climate is worse hoping to see a business friendly or even business even decision out of sacto. 

When the last BS budget went through I, that day let go of two people.  I had kept them on longer than business sense told me to but did anyway.  Now I learn that caliiifonia is now another 8 BILLION IN DEBT past the previous 42 for a total 50 B or ONE HALF THE TOTAL ****ING BUDGET.. Judging from what just happened I hold zero hope that spending will be cut (BTW there have been ZERO state employees laid off...NONE.) and only taxes increased, fees increased, and regulation increased to increase fines.  Although I was considering moving my business to Havasu but I am pushing off the yoke of responsibility.  I will be informing my empoye...exploited people that there will be no new contracts pursued.  The buy offs of the in-house projects will be the end of the company and that's it.  I don't need government hassle, employee apathy, and higher taxes on my hard work.  So thanks liberal politicians california and the USA can kiss off another manufacturing business to Japan, Taiwan, or china.  I'm going to take a break and just charge big fees to service the equipment out in the field.

I'm sorry it has come to that for you.  But I do understand your anger and resentment.  I sincerely hope that things work out for you moving forward.

Is there no chance of you just moving your business to a different state?

[BlueStateSaint]

I'm sorry it has come to that for you.  But I do understand your anger and resentment.  I sincerely hope that things work out for you moving forward.

Is there no chance of you just moving your business to a different state?

Excatly what I was thinking.  Vegas, maybe?

[DumbAss Tanker]

The idea of proportional compensation actually has ancient roots in our society and law, though strangely it's largely limited to seafaring.  Naval commanders, privateers, and pirates all used variations of it, under which prizes were divided among all involved and the owners or backers, and to some extent in older salvage and treasure trove rules as well.

It's really never been part of commerce in general, at least beyond very small and highly-specialized talent organizations.   

[jukin]

Excatly what I was thinking.  Vegas, maybe?

I was looking at Lake Havasu but that is even more work. We have lots of equipment in the field and companies want upgrades or service and that will keep one person reasonably busy. I probably will make more money, work less, and certainly have less hassle.  I called a broker yesterday, maybe someone will be interested in buying but the business is very niche and that makes it harder particularly during these times.

Frankly I'm tired of working to get the order, to working to design it, working to get it built and degugged, and working to fight all the powers that work very hard to stop me.

Thanks for the concern and sorry for the rant, just kinda of snapped.

[Texacon]

I was looking at Lake Havasu but that is even more work. We have lots of equipment in the field and companies want upgrades or service and that will keep one person reasonably busy. I probably will make more money, work less, and certainly have less hassle.  I called a broker yesterday, maybe someone will be interested in buying but the business is very niche and that makes it harder particularly during these times.

Frankly I'm tired of working to get the order, to working to design it, working to get it built and degugged, and working to fight all the powers that work very hard to stop me.

Thanks for the concern and sorry for the rant, just kinda of snapped.

Good Luck to you Jukin.  Hope it all works out for the best and I hope it is an illustration to anyone paying attention to how 'Hope and Change' type shit is going to ruin the nation.

KC

[delilahmused]

hamsterjill  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Fri Mar-13-09 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. I like your #1
   
Are you thinking something along the lines of where the exec's pay couldn't be more than "x"% of the lowest paid company employee?

So if a CEO wanted to give himself a 10% raise, he'd basically have to give everyone a 10% raise? Hmmm...interesting thinking.

Of course I see pros and cons, but I like the basic concept. The devil would be in the details, of course, like the definition of "employee" versus temporary workers, etc., and the use of any merit type pay for those who perform above and beyond the expectations. Surely there would be abuses, but I'm interested in what others might think about this concept.

Okay, THAT'S the CEO job I want! Being able to give myself a raise "just because" without answering to a Board of Directors!

Cindie

[Texacon]

I wonder how come none of them want to jump ALL the way into the pool?

Hey DUmmies ....if you want it to work one way it should work both ways.  When the company loses money or there is a new start up do you want to share in the RISK/LOSS?


KC