Connected Wages

[Paradoxum]

Is there as reason why the wages of the richest shouldn't be connected to the wages for the lowest paid?

If the wages (bonus', etc, included) of upper management is connected to the lowest paid; so if the highest is increased by 5%, the lowest in creased by 5.1%, why not?

 

[tstor]

Is there as reason why the wages of the richest shouldn't be connected to the wages for the lowest paid?

If the wages (bonus', etc, included) of upper management is connected to the lowest paid; so if the highest is increased by 5%, the lowest in creased by 5.1%, why not?

Because maybe a business owner does not want to raise the wages of his/her workers? Or maybe he/she does but just not by the same percentage of him/herself? There are many reasons "why not."

 

[RDKirk]

Is there as reason why the wages of the richest shouldn't be connected to the wages for the lowest paid?

If the wages (bonus', etc, included) of upper management is connected to the lowest paid; so if the highest is increased by 5%, the lowest in creased by 5.1%, why not?

I guess the real question is "why?"

I'm not opposed to the idea, and if any owner made that decision, I'd think it was a good idea.

The primary reason a person goes into business is to earn a profit. Otherwise, it would be entered as non-profit.

By what rational relevant to owning and running a profitable business should he do that?

 

[Vyrzaharak]

Is there as reason why the wages of the richest shouldn't be connected to the wages for the lowest paid?

If the wages (bonus', etc, included) of upper management is connected to the lowest paid; so if the highest is increased by 5%, the lowest in creased by 5.1%, why not?

Ethically, it's called being a voluntary institution.

Now, whether a corporation falls under that despite being a creation of the state and/or being funded by the state is another argument entirely, but a business otherwise certainly has the ethical right to decide its own wages (though those wages should be decided in relation to the market, or else a business can lose its own employees and die off), regardless of what government believes.

 

[Harfelugan]

Is there as reason why the wages of the richest shouldn't be connected to the wages for the lowest paid?

If the wages (bonus', etc, included) of upper management is connected to the lowest paid; so if the highest is increased by 5%, the lowest in creased by 5.1%, why not?

Are you speaking of the general richest, or those working at individual businesses?
Big difference as to what might be possible.

Either way you inhibit the rights of individuals. The lowest paid workers, of which I'm one, contribute labor and craftsmanship. The wealthiest provide the opportunity for the lowest to earn an income. They build and expand my opportunity to earn wages based on my skill sets. Not the government. The lowest, like myself, don't startup, or grow a business. We shouldn't expect to be treated like those who do. Their incomes are based on growth, mine is based off the profit and loss margins, time employed, and skills. Apples and oranges.

 

[HoleyHermit]

Is there a reason that Michael Jordan's pay shouldn't have been connected to the pay of the stadium janitor? Yes. Nobody bought tickets to Bulls games because of the janitor. A janitor can be easily replaced. A Michael Jordan is much more difficult to replace.

Do you want your surgeon's salary tied to that of the security guard? Even if that means good surgeons decide that it isn't worthwhile to be surgeons anymore?

Ben & Jerry's instituted a 5 to 1 limit on the CEO's pay until they couldn't find a viable candidate willing to be CEO when Ben Cohen retired.

 

[381465]

First 2 reasons I think of are talent and risk.

Most uper management/executives have a greater skill set, expertise and percentage of ownership.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Is there as reason why the wages of the richest shouldn't be connected to the wages for the lowest paid?

If the wages (bonus', etc, included) of upper management is connected to the lowest paid; so if the highest is increased by 5%, the lowest in creased by 5.1%, why not?

Why not? Because such a system would be unjust.

 

[Paradoxum]

Because maybe a business owner does not want to raise the wages of his/her workers? Or maybe he/she does but just not by the same percentage of him/herself? There are many reasons "why not."

This doesn't really deal with the issue.

Maybe the employer should be forced to raise wages. That he or she doesn't want to doesn't explain why this shouldn't be done.

Raise wages increases spending, and thus taxes and income for companies.

 

[381465]

This doesn't really deal with the issue.

Maybe the employer should be forced to raise wages. That he or she doesn't want to doesn't explain why this shouldn't be done.

Raise wages increases spending, and thus taxes and income for companies.

...or forced to raise wages, increases NOI, increases cost of product, decreases market share, lays off employees and endangers existence of company.

 

[Paradoxum]

I guess the real question is "why?"

It increases the standard of living of the average person. It also could increase the demand, and so supply, employment and wages.

The primary reason a person goes into business is to earn a profit. Otherwise, it would be entered as non-profit.

1) One could go into business to be a good person and a good business person
2) Few people say there should be no profit.
2) Good pay could mean good economy. Wages stimulate demand and the economy.

By what rational relevant to owning and running a profitable business should he do that?

1) Because demand promotes supply.
2) Because productivity has increased, and there is money to pay employees more.

If you wish to gain profit, without the benefit of profit going to the workers, why should that not be considered exploitation, or semi-slavery?

 

[Paradoxum]

Ethically, it's called being a voluntary institution.

Now, whether a corporation falls under that despite being a creation of the state and/or being funded by the state is another argument entirely, but a business otherwise certainly has the ethical right to decide its own wages (though those wages should be decided in relation to the market, or else a business can lose its own employees and die off), regardless of what government believes.

I don't believe a non-democratic company has a right to decide wages.

The issues is practicality, not rights.

If competition only serves the higher management, and abstract company, what's the point? Why not benefit the people?

 

[381465]

Have you started and managed a business?

If you're passionate about this, you can start your business and run it however you wish.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are you speaking of the general richest, or those working at individual businesses?
Big difference as to what might be possible.

Either way you inhibit the rights of individuals. The lowest paid workers, of which I'm one, contribute labor and craftsmanship. The wealthiest provide the opportunity for the lowest to earn an income. They build and expand my opportunity to earn wages based on my skill sets. Not the government. The lowest, like myself, don't startup, or grow a business. We shouldn't expect to be treated like those who do. Their incomes are based on growth, mine is based off the profit and loss margins, time employed, and skills. Apples and oranges.

Your wage is not based on profit. Or the increase in profit.

You should be treated equally. The issue is that society has improved economically, but it's been kept to the richest.

The richest get richer as the economy expands, but this doesn't go to the average person.

 

[Paradoxum]

Why not? Because such a system would be unjust.

Why would it be unjust to increase the lowest paid wages the same or more than what the highest paid wages are increased?

(Productivity has increase, but the pay for the people who do the work hasn't in line).

 

[tstor]

Maybe the employer should be forced to raise wages.

Why? What happens if he/she doesn't?

 

[RDKirk]

It increases the standard of living of the average person. It also could increase the demand, and so supply, employment and wages.

Not necessarily.

If the CEO by his intelligent decisions really does raise the profit of the company by, say, 5% and everyone else is merely doing their jobs, then he does deserve a raise and they don't, and certainly not more of a raise. He was a hero, they just participated.

Now, if company profits rose because everyone across the board did better work, then a raise across the board would be justified.

Nor would raising wages necessarily increase demand for any particular product, and there is not a connection between raising wages for my staff that would lead to an increase in demand of my product.

1) One could go into business to be a good person and a good business person.
2) Few people say there should be no profit.

I get the feeling you don't actually know what profit is. I own a business. The profit is not my salary. My salary is a business expense. The "profit" is what's left over after I've paid myself and employees, paid all the bills, paid for maintenance. The profit is the capital used to expand the company, to do more things, to add more products.

So, yes, there must be a profit if my business is production. Only organizations that don't actually produce anything tangible can have no profit.

2) Good pay could mean good economy. Wages stimulate demand and the economy.
1) Because demand promotes supply.

"Good pay" has to come from good business. This is not "the chicken or the egg"---there is no money to pay anyone until after the product has been produced and sold. There is no money for increased wages until after the company's income has increased.

2) Because productivity has increased, and there is money to pay employees more.

Numerous studies have shown that raises do not increase productivity. People believe the work they're already doing is worth the raise.

If you wish to gain profit, without the benefit of profit going to the workers, why should that not be considered exploitation, or semi-slavery?

Because I'm already paying them a fair wage.

 

[Paradoxum]

...or forced to raise wages, increases NOI, increases cost of product, decreases market share, lays off employees and endangers existence of company.

Why? Companies exist while inequality increases. They could pay more to employees.

 

[RDKirk]

This doesn't really deal with the issue.

Maybe the employer should be forced to raise wages. That he or she doesn't want to doesn't explain why this shouldn't be done.

Raise wages increases spending, and thus taxes and income for companies.

Raising wages raises the cost of doing business, thus the price of the products.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

I don't believe a non-democratic company has a right to decide wages.

The issues is practicality, not rights.

If competition only serves the higher management, and abstract company, what's the point? Why not benefit the people?

In practical terms, if a business is not providing an effective wage then someone else is bound to come along and steal those employees. Your argument only does you a disservice.

Tell me, are you willing to use a bullet to get a wage?