Why is it always "If we pay workers $15/hour, the prices for everything will skyrocket!" but never "How can we afford to pay CEO's 347x more than the average employee?"
@Ferretsyndicate the price of a living wage limits the humble CEO to a single private jet purchase per year
hey yeah! We could just take all the money from the boss and it wouldn't even affect the total revune of the company, just the equity of it's distribution.
There would be no reason to increase prices beyond malice.
Also like, we already live with companies arbitrarly rasing prices for blatant and naked profit. We've done nothing but aquess to the pharmacutical industry and all that's happened is that the CEOs get richer and the rest of us pay more for medcine and die of preventable illness.
@Ferretsyndicate (That 347x number is old, btw. I think it's from before Trump took office? Either way, the number back when I checked last year was somewhere around 360x or so. It's likely increased since then too.)
There's so many ways that they're doing this bullshit that it's a wonder we're not burning down every mansion we can find.
@KitsuneAlicia @Ferretsyndicate One thing I've found that seems to be the cause of a lot of disparity is that really highly paid employees, including CEOs, tend to get a lot of their compensation in stock. My stock compensation has been worth more than my cash comp at my past several jobs. Frankly I think we need to end that.
@Ferretsyndicate because, a) the CEO is just one person, and he's doing such a good job!, and b) most people think that number is, at best ×7, and at worst ×30
nobody would want to believe they are two orders of magnitude off, and hardly anyone knows what that means, anyway
re: capitalism, CEOs
@Ferretsyndicate I think part of the problem is that the CEO's take is so abstracted when it's presented as an annual salary. Exxon's CEO makes $17.5 mil a year, which just sounds like A Number until you consider that he's making over $8,410 an hour—that's $140 every minute, or $2.33 every second.
re: capitalism, CEOs (cont'd)
@Ferretsyndicate Consumers living under capitalism have bought into this Horatio Alger myth that one's hard work is directly reflected in the size of one's paycheck, even though the notion is completely nonsensical when a minimum-wage gas station attendant makes as much in an hour as the CEO makes in about three seconds.
Trying to think from their perspective: I think is because the company exist to enrich them, so being fair to the rest of the employees is irrelevant & probably counter productive. All the efforts go to appease the masses and make them believe they could always be worst. ("at least you have this job")
Increasing wages without also putting in price control on housing, food, utilities, medicine, etc. will only do a temporary good.
It's the same argument I have with people who think that UBI by itself will fix everything.
"Oh, everyone gets $1000 per month as part of UBI? Oh look, every landlord just increased the rental price by $1000+"
I dont disagree. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't strike where and when we can even if we can't get all the goods at once.
All this talk over minimum wage and no talk of maximum wage.
After a certain point any money earned after that should be taxed at like 95%+.
Unlimited wealth is immoral while there are starving and suffering people and the environment needs help too for our animal siblings.
It would cost more to pay employees a living wage. But there's plenty of historical and contemporary examples to show it's achievable.
But pragmatism aside, it's the morally correct thing to do. Saying otherwise would be an argument for wage slavery and debt bondage imo.
Many people can't refuse.
But, yes, in the long run, syndicates, coops, etc. are the goal.
But the OP says nothing about which one is more expensive--it's pointing out how outlandish CEO salaries are never questioned; the cost never seems to be worthy of consideration (despite rising CEO wages being firmly correlated to stagnating worker wages, which surely has a macroeconomic impact).
But that doesn't mean establishing a feasible living wage isn't a step in the right direction.
Yeah, I read your post. It just kinda fucking sucked.
Nah. People who step in to defend rich people and then go "if I was poor, I would simply choose not to work for a hierarchical organization" suck.
"Wheels are stupid. They only work because they are round and thus roll."
There's a cooperative-like organization called the MST in Brazil and it's one of the best examples I can think of. The anarchist cooperatives in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War worked very well as well--it's debatable whether this was a product of the war's circumstances, however.
That's my ideal situation. Again, the original post was about our media, and general perception in today's society amongst most liberal/conservative thought:
That raising wages for workers to a completely reasonable level is unaffordable (had the min. wage kept up w/ inflation & productivity it would be $22+). But obscenely high CEO/manager salaries don't warrant the same judgment, nor scrutiny.
@Ferretsyndicate never answers the question of why a CEO should get paid even 15/hour
A cool and chill place for cool and chill people.