6 ms·
The problem that arises is that if you artificially inflate someone's wages to an arbitrary number like 21/hr, they might not provide enough value to economical
by pequalsnp 7y ago
The problem that arises is that if you artificially inflate someone's wages to an arbitrary number like 21/hr, they might not provide enough value to economically justify the wage level they're set at.
It's not, and shouldn't be, an emotional argument. It's an economical one.
- behringer 7y agoThe CEO of walmart most certainly isn't worth 22 million/year. If you can't bring in 21/hour as a cab driver you probably shouldn't be driving cab, especially considering you should be pulling in, what, well over 100/hr gross?
- pequalsnp 7y agoWhat evidence do you have that the CEO doesn't bring that much in value to Walmart?
- behringer 7y ago"Bad managers cost just as much as good managers." https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what-theyre-paid/ https://investorplace.com/2018/07/are-ceos-really-worth-what... See also: https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good-performanceand-bad-11558085402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-companies-pay-ceos-for-good... https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#6045b5607e32 https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highe...
- pequalsnp 7y agoI CTRL+F'd for Walmart in each article but didn't find anything. I thought that was the topic of discussion?
- behringer 7y agoYou're mistaken
- tryptophan 7y agoThese articles present an incredibly naive analysis of the situation. The logic is "high pay should equal high stock performance" but this fails to recognize that in an effecient market the ability and salary of the ceo would already be priced into the stock, and thus would have "no effect" on its performance. You can't prove that the stock would've done less-worse if a different (lower paid) ceo was there, which is essentially what these articles try and argue.
- smileysteve 7y agoThe economic argument however, also includes taxes, the welfare state, etc; If a job pays less than the cost of living in an area, then the job is somewhere between subsidized by the government or not economically viable.
- morvita 7y agoFrankly, I don't care about any economic argument that says people shouldn't have the ability to put food on their table, a roof over their head, and have decent healthcare. Any company that cannot be profitable and pay their employees enough to cover basic needs shouldn't exist as a company.
- dymk 7y agoThey can go find a different job that pays more. Uber driving is not skilled labor. How it’s justified as a 21/hr job I don’t understand.
- morvita 7y agoI genuinely don't know how to explain that the fact it requires an income of more than 21/hr to meet basic needs is all the justification that should be required. Maybe if we stopped thinking of employees/contractors as "labor" and thought of them as people it would be easier to empathize with their needs. Do you think that your friends, family, and loved ones deserve a wage that meets their basic needs? Why shouldn't all humans deserve the same?
- dymk 7y agoIt only requires that amount if you’re intent on living in the most expensive cities in the entire country.