| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Maximum Wage | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 14 2003, 07:31 PM (180 Views) | |
| Hoss | Nov 14 2003, 07:31 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
There are those who push for a maximum wage for CEOs and such. Are you for this. I think that this is completely against capitalism. Why shouldn't the founder of a company get filthy rich off of it? A CEO should be able do get the reward the (big) share holders are willing to pay to keep him. If he don't earn it he usually gets a golden parachute and leaves. If he does a lousy job the share holders loose money. That would be a vote of no for me on a maximum wage. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 14 2003, 08:07 PM Post #2 |
|
Admiral
|
That was (sort of) tried with the tax policies we had in the 70's. A 90% rate of income tax on the rich severly limited their incomes over a set threshold. It failed miserably. Unlike a minimum wage (which increases the incentive for people to work rather than sit at home on welfare for instance) a maximum wage would damage peoples incentive to work harder and try and achieve more. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 14 2003, 09:01 PM Post #3 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
We did have something of a maximum wage here in the early-mid 90s. CEOs were prevented from having salaries greater than one million dollars. What did this bring about? The stock option. Now CEOs make several magnitudes more than they could on a salary. Good for them! The minimum wage does not increase the incentive to work at all. The minimum wage is pay for no-skill and low-skill jobs and is ordinarily paid for a probationary period. Considering how difficult it is here in the US to get welfare (and how difficult it is in most states to qualify for unemployment insurance), it doesn't make sense to NOT work. Things are somewhat different in the UK. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 14 2003, 09:09 PM Post #4 |
|
Admiral
|
We had the situation where people were in a way abusing the welfare state by living on benefits as they would be better off on benefits than working because of low pay. Thus the minimum wage has increased incentives to work in this country, along with other measures such as the Working Tax Credit, where the Government pays people to work rather than paying than to stay at home. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 15 2003, 02:13 AM Post #5 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
A maximum wage limit? One word: Stifiling! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| jjtrek | Nov 18 2003, 01:16 PM Post #6 |
|
Lieutenant Commander
|
If I do more work and put in more hours in a company as an administrative assistant than the CEO of that same company does, why shouldn't I earn a wage closer to what that CEO gets? CEO's and Administrative Assistants are equally expendable in any company - as it has been seen in this day and age. Why do sports stars make as much money as they do and only end up on a police blotter while I make only a small fraction of that and walk the legal straight and narrow? I think the reason people are behind a wage cap for executives is the fact that wage gaps have become wage "grand canyons" and are being seen as far from equitable. Julia |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 18 2003, 01:30 PM Post #7 |
|
Admiral
|
I don't like the idea of a maximum wage. However, CEO's should also realize that their companies (and wallets) would be nothing without the people that work for them. Unfortunately too many seem like they couldn't care less. I don't know what the answer is to get some CEO's to pay their employees fairly, but a maximum wage is too imposing. Maybe the minimum wage could help with this, but that's another thread...
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 18 2003, 02:27 PM Post #8 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Is an administrative assistant's work as important to the company function as a CEO's? Does the administrative assistant make the decisions that impact a company's operation? How do you know that you "do more work" than the CEO? How is this quantified? CEOs and admin assistants are not equally expendable.
The sports "star" makes the salary his market will bear. That's simple economics. Not every sport player is a thug, and considering how their membership on a team affects ticket and concession sales, their salary can be seen as a worthwhile investment. Do I go out and buy the jersey of thug sports "stars"? No. Do I buy them for my son or as gifts? No. Do I attend ball games? Baseball, yes. Hockey, yes. Of course my tickets also help ME do business.
No, the reason people are behind wage caps is pure envy. This is class warfare, perpetrated by certain aspects of society that want the uninformed good and mad at the so-called injustices between wage earners. A few simple economics courses (Macro and Micro) would cure this, but alas we no longer teach this in high school... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ds9074 | Nov 25 2003, 11:01 AM Post #9 |
|
Admiral
|
I prefer redistribution of wealth through other means such as tax credits for the lowest earners funded by taxation on the highest earners. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 25 2003, 11:08 AM Post #10 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
But it turns out to be direct transfer payments as opposed to tax credits... alas. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:14 PM Jul 11