5 ms·

A couple of issues... First, your CEO, it's true, did not likely put financial risk on the line to take the position obtained. But the CEO's 40x salary was pu

by jterce 16y ago

A couple of issues... First, your CEO, it's true, did not likely put financial risk on the line to take the position obtained. But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment? Secondly, your point on coercion. Yes, you can certainly argue that the engineer was "forced" at some level to take a job, and thus some salary. But in a world living with people you will never be free of all influences or coercion. Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion.

grammaton 16y ago
"But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?" This does not address the argument that rewards are being disproportionately bestowed on someone who took no risks, and arguably, produces less wealth or value on the whole than the people who actually do the work of creating and building products and services. "Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion." Not at all. Coercion implies a disparity of leverage. The company has money (the means of survival, in this society) at their disposal. The employees do not, or else they wouldn't be looking for a job, would they? In the worst case scenario the company doesn't get to make a product but still retains it's money, but the would-be employees have nothing, and are either reduced to subsistence level living, the charity of others, or simply starve.

by jterce 16y ago

grammaton 16y ago

"But the CEO's 40x salary was put in place by the elected representatives of those who did put financial risk on the line--stockholders. If they see that salary as a good investment based on their risk why should they not be allowed to make that investment?" This does not address the argument that rewards are being disproportionately bestowed on someone who took no risks, and arguably, produces less wealth or value on the whole than the people who actually do the work of creating and building products and services. "Similarly if a company wants to build a product it is "forced" to hire employees and thus reach an agreement on salary. This too, by your line of reasoning, is a form of coercion." Not at all. Coercion implies a disparity of leverage. The company has money (the means of survival, in this society) at their disposal. The employees do not, or else they wouldn't be looking for a job, would they? In the worst case scenario the company doesn't get to make a product but still retains it's money, but the would-be employees have nothing, and are either reduced to subsistence level living, the charity of others, or simply starve.