Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[timotheus]

Apologies if this has been posted, I did a search and didn't see anything..

The purpose of this post is to begin a discussion concerning what 10 edicts (totally arbitrary) could be made, that could significantly curb corporate greed. Even if not ever implemented by the Government, corporations could pledge to follow these edicts.

I'll start with one. If you like one, vote for it like this: 001 +

001) The x10 Rule - Income (salaries+bonuses+stock options) within a corporation cannot have a disparity higher than x10. For example, if a CEO wants to make $2 million a year, the lowest member of the company couldn't make less than $200,000.

Reasoning: I think people should be compensated higher than others, depending on skillset, experience, etc. However that disparity shouldn't reach the astronomical heights it is at now. I think it would be a win for everyone, because while paying an administrative assistant $200,000 a year is unusual, it would be tempered with the fact that Holy Crap is that a great job, and the employee would bust their butt ensuring there was never a doubt they had the wrong $200,000 admin assistant in that position. Because the number of qualified people would LEAP at the chance to have that job.

I vote: 001 +

[GlyphGryph]

There's actually a precedent for this as well, in 401k deposit rules.

While there are obviously ways around it, I think at its core it is a good idea.

[Levi]

I'm sure shareholders would love that, its more money for them. 


002)  Corporations may not make political donations.  (for semi obvious reasons)

[RedKing]

While I absolutely love the idea of capping CEO pay relative to worker pay, 10:1 is never going to fly. Why? Because the ratio is already higher than that in many other countries. But given that the American ratio is somewhere between 185:1 and 500:1, I think there's definitely room for downsizing it. Even 40:1 would seem reasonable compared to today's standards, and would still be generous compared to most of Europe. And it would be back to about where US firms were in the early 1980's.

[timotheus]

While I absolutely love the idea of capping CEO pay relative to worker pay, 10:1 is never going to fly. Why? Because the ratio is already higher than that in many other countries. But given that the American ratio is somewhere between 185:1 and 500:1, I think there's definitely room for downsizing it. Even 40:1 would seem reasonable compared to today's standards, and would still be generous compared to most of Europe. And it would be back to about where US firms were in the early 1980's.

I agree it would have severe resistance, but from whom? The only corporations who would run into this would be ones who were so successful as to be able to afford large(>million) bonuses to execs.

Say there is a smallish company, where salary range is 35-100K. If the owner, CEO whatever wanted a bonus, they could get up to an additional 250K before hitting this rule. There's still plenty of room to 'reward success'.

@Levi That is genius; don't know how I didn't think of that. What a great way to push this into corporations. Shareholder vote!

[Heron TSG]

While I absolutely love the idea of capping CEO pay relative to worker pay, 10:1 is never going to fly.

The CEO of CostCo, IIRC, has sworn to never take more than 2x the pay of the lowest-paid employee. Probably uncommon, but hey.

[RedKing]

While I absolutely love the idea of capping CEO pay relative to worker pay, 10:1 is never going to fly.

The CEO of CostCo, IIRC, has sworn to never take more than 2x the pay of the lowest-paid employee. Probably uncommon, but hey.

Is that including ALL forms of compensation? HP's newest CEO pulled an Iacocca and is only earning $1 a year. Until you factor in the $10+ million compensation package of bonuses, stock, perks, etc. But hey, it's good PR.

And according to ABC about a year ago, CostCo's CEO made $3.5 million:
$350,000 base salary
$2.9 million in stock options
$93,004 in perks (including free insurance and vehicle allowance)


And then you have guys like Larry Ellison, who make more in an hour than many people make in a year. According to PayWatch, his pay ratio is roughly 2291:1.

[Telgin]

While I absolutely love the idea of capping CEO pay relative to worker pay, 10:1 is never going to fly.

The CEO of CostCo, IIRC, has sworn to never take more than 2x the pay of the lowest-paid employee. Probably uncommon, but hey.

Didn't the CEO(s) of Google say something like that once?  I don't think it lasted long, but I can't be bothered to search for it right now.

Overall I agree that something should be done to reduce the disparity.  I do wonder how much of an effect it would have on... "people" in general though.  A CEO making 500x as much as the lowest paid employee in a corporation of even a few tens of thousands of employees doesn't make much difference.

[Seamas]

I vote:  002+

Corporations must be prohibited entirely from making political donations.  This is the most obvious and necessary step to disentangle our government from the hands of megabusiness and restore our own political apparatus to responsible service of the People.

[kaijyuu]

I'd love a maximum wage that's relative to the minimum one (something like 100:1).

All those CEOs buying congress want to increase their own paycheck? Boost the minimum wage so they can boost their own.

[Andrew425]

I'm all for getting money out of politics.

So I would support something that bans corporate donations.

But I think capping CEO pay is slightly ridiculous

[RedKing]

I vote:  002+

Corporations must be prohibited entirely from making political donations.  This is the most obvious and necessary step to disentangle our government from the hands of megabusiness and restore our own political apparatus to responsible service of the People.

Sadly, the Derpreme Court ruled that since corporations are people, they have a free speech right to advocate for "their" own self-interest.

An easier route to the same goal (along with fixing a number of other problems) would be to rescind the "personhood" of corporations.

[timotheus]

I'm all for getting money out of politics.

So I would support something that bans corporate donations.

But I think capping CEO pay is slightly ridiculous

I wasn't suggesting capping CEO pay. If they wanted money that was greater than 10x the lowest salary, they'd need to move everyone up a pay scale. There is nothing stopping them from paying themselves as much as they want, as long as the disparity in salaries in the company isn't greater than 10x.

I vote: 002 +

[RedKing]

I'm all for getting money out of politics.

So I would support something that bans corporate donations.

But I think capping CEO pay is slightly ridiculous

I wasn't suggesting capping CEO pay. If they wanted money that was greater than 10x the lowest salary, they'd need to move everyone up a pay scale. There is nothing stopping them from paying themselves as much as they want, as long as the disparity in salaries in the company isn't greater than 10x.

I vote: 002 +

I can see how that could be seriously abused. For instance, forming a "shell" corporation which has maybe 10 employees (the CEO and Board) and "outsources" all functions to the main company. On paper, they'd be complying with the rule but could get away with paying whatever they wanted.

I say this because in the late 90's there was a craze for laying off many of your employees and then turning around and rehiring them as contractors. The reason? Lowers the company's headcount, and profit per employee was an investor metric that was in vogue at the time (not to mention you can get out of paying benefits that way). Nortel took it to ridiculous extremes, where nearly everybody I worked with was a contractor, even many who had "been with" Norte for a decade.

[GlyphGryph]

That was also, often, extremely illegal, and the fact that so many companies went completely unprosecuted for it is yet another example of the failures in our system.