Forum Post: Do you REALLY have to take more than 40 Times what the Average Worker Makes!?!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 2:03 a.m. EST by vettezeppelin
(163)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In 1969 the average CEO made 40 times what the average worker made. Now the average CEO makes over 400 times what the average worker makes. How about a platform item for OWS that would make it illegal for any 1 individual to earn more than 40 times what the average workers make at the organization they are associated with. This doesn't restrict people from making as much as they want but wealth is rarely created alone, it is usually done with the help of employees so it's only fair that they share in that wealth, this is a way to insure that happens!!
sir richard branson once said he felt responsible for all actions the main one was his 1st and formost was to share his wealth with his employees. it was his duty as a man of good fortune to be responsable to the ppl
40 times is to small. How bout 100 times. That would be awesome.
That's not the worst part, even when they are fired for doing a bad job they get millions in severance pay, HP's CEO resigned after violating the companies sexual harassment policy, they gave him $50 million. If I play grab ass with the secretary I wouldn't get a Wal Mart coupon!
That's called maximum wage. They way you present it ignores some finer points of it, but that's what it is.
It is not a maximum wage because it does not limit what people at the top can make...the 40TIMES idea is to be sure that as the company grows and profits are made that the executives at the top aren't the only ones that benefit...they will still benefit disproportionally more because of the 40times rule but they have risk and money invested most likely so that accounts for that but it also insures that the workers get rewarded for helping in that companies success. It will actually make businesses more competitive because since a CEO will have to pay employees more before he can get more, he will make sure he has better employees which make his company better!! It's a win win except for slackers who don't want to work hard!!
Like I said, it ignores some finer points, mainly by being relativistic. But the basic principle is there.
Do you really need to make more than 1/400th of what a CEO makes? For most 99 percenters, I suspect that prior to the economic collapse in 2008 the truthful answer would be no. I'd often wondered why the overall dissatisfaction over the income gap never seemed to go beyond minor grumbling and general envy. I think it's because when things are going reasonably well in your own life you don't really care so much about how well other people are doing. But I believe middle class happiness in the past decade was financed by debt. Debt itself, by it's very nature, is "trickle-up"--it's a transfer of wealth to money lenders, because whatever you borrow you have to pay back to them with interest--interest is an expense for you, but it's income to the money lender. Also, when wealthy people borrow money they tend to use it to make even more money than they borrowed. When the middle class borrowed money it was often in the form of high credit card debt, buying things we couldn't really afford. I've not researched this theory, but it's my belief that personal debt, more than CEO salaries, is the reason the income gap has been growing. However, if I'm right, I don't know what the answer is to fix the problem.
I work at a bank as a teller. I stand for 8 ours straight. We work so hard under tremendous pressure to take care of annoying customers. I get paid 12/hr. Thankfully I have a healthcare plan through my job, but it doesn't cover everything. I am not lazy or dumb, but I know what I get paid as compared to some bank executive is not fare at all. I contribute just as much to this bank. There should be some kind of sane system introduced here. I'm working full time and I'm struggling to pay my rent. I have credit card debt. I go to school part time. What else should I be doing to make a little gain here.
Employees matter? I thought they were just expenses. Only executives matter. Trust me, even if an employee does a job that impresses an executive so much that he goes to his board and tries to get even a small bonus approved for that employee they will not do it (I have seen this happen), but they'll still give the executives huge bonuses for the employee's accomplishment. If this were really capitalism then the employee would have gotten the bonus because he added value. However, it is not, this system is instead about maintaining the status quo where there are the elite and then there are the peons. This started out as a free capitalist society, but that is not what it is today. Now it has become a kind of non-free capitalist society. If there is a word for it then I do not know what it is.
Just go back to the top tax rates of the 1950's thru 1970's.
I do not want to live in a world where a group of men can dictate what another man makes, minimum or maximum wage. No man has claim on another, we all work under our own free will.
Really?!? Then you are a Billionaire right!?! Oh you have "chosen" not to be one, oh yes that's it. The 40Times rule still allows a person to make whatever they want, it just ensures that the people working for this person get paid fairly too.
I'm not a billionaire. I have an engineering degree and an MBA, and you are trying to benefit from my hard work. Why should I pay someone 1 / 40th of my wages when they have 1 / 100th of my skills? Did they stay up late on Friday and Saturday nights studying in college, or were they at the frat party? Did they leave their comfortable job, take on additional debt to go to business school and move away from their friends and family, or where they content with their lot in life?
Explain to me how you have claim over me? By what right do you get to determine how much money I make?
Ok. that's perfect. If I don't make any money but you've earned 40 bucks, you are a nasty, dirty, filthy rich guy and owe me some...cause you make forty times more than I do, right? How can I get it? ...and when? Beware what you wish for...
The Boogieman
If you don't make any money then you don't work for me so I owe you nothing BUT if you do make money and work for a company and contribute to it's success then why should a CEO be able his/her compensation to levels in access of 40times what the workers make at that company? If the average worker makes 9.00 dollars per hour the CEO could still make up to 745k without having to increase the average wages in the company. I for one would be ashamed to have a company that had wage disparities greater than that BUT that is what is going on in our country now!!
Because in this country (like in any other civilized one), who is working is being paid by his boss. Who is the guilty one here? His boss cause he is paying his worker that much... the worker, because he accepts his boss to pay him that much,...or your nasty ego, cause you are envy for what he makes while you did not make it yet (although you wish you've did it). The point is not, who is working for who. If your point is valid....than mine have to valid as well. If you made 100 dollars today, you owe me 50 dollars, cause we have to EARN equal, regardless of our ability to make money. And...you just made 100 more than I made today, cause I didn't make anything. You...dirty, filthy, nasty rich man... :-)
Best wishes,
The boogieman
The 40TIMES rule let's CEOs and Business Owners make as much as they want. It simply prevents them from being the only ones who benefit from the success of the company. Anyone who makes money benefits from the labor of those who work for them just as those who work for a company benefit from the risk and innovative thinking that comes from the CEO or Owner. No one is entitled to be paid if they don't do any work BUT if they do work and contribute then they are entitled to get paid and to be paid fairly and the 40TIMES rule would help ensure that more people share in a companies success!!
0 x 40 = 0
....
And his analogy to the current situation is
1 x 400 over 1 x 40
How bout we tax them at 1950 rates instead? Close all tax loopholes, close all offshore tax havens, strengthen our corporate prosecutors, keep corporations out of government, do NOT remove capital gains and derivatives tax as the ultra-rich make most of their income through those two things...just a thought.
When you look at the amount of money that the owner of a company must put back in to the company in order to keep it afloat for the worker to keep his job, the numbers don't look so bad.