4 ms·

Just because market rates for manual labour are rock bottom, doesn't make it morally justifiable that amazon workers are paid slightly above that when the CEO g

Just because market rates for manual labour are rock bottom, doesn't make it morally justifiable that amazon workers are paid slightly above that when the CEO gets paid 200 million dollars. To be clear: my primary concern is not that the CEO is paid too much, but that the gap between them is so great. As a company grows more profitable, that profit should be shared amongst the workers, not paid out as insane executive compensation.

conductr 5y ago
I get it. It's a common sentiment that I happen to disagree with. You could pay the CEO $20M and have the floor for labor at $200K and the gap is still absurd. I do believe that different jobs should command different pay and that markets should set those rates. I don't believe $200M is the market rate for a good CEO though. I believe the shareholders should get the profit as they grow (that's why they invested) and employees should be paid appropriately to their job/market. In all cases, employees should be treated well. I don't advocate taking advantage of the lower rung. Have some level of purchasing power, etc. But, there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" and the only fix is to climb to a higher level as an individual. Lifting the entire bottom just moves the needle and doesn't improve purchasing power as it just forces prices up as well. Out of curiosity, what is an acceptable gap between min/max compensation?
- wpietri 5y ago
  > there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" Oh? Why's that? And how long have you spent struggling at the bottom rung?
  - conductr 5y ago
    Welp. I suppose I grew up in trailer parks, single alcoholic mom, food stamps, HUD paid rent, absent dad.... end up working my way through college without debt (FT job + FT course load).... what's your story? Because I know a lot of poor people and their psychology pretty well. My quoted "struggle" is because there is a distinction between real poor and bottom, in my mind. Bottom is just that and can be quite functional and the struggle comes from perception and comparing to other things/people. Sacrifice is necessary at this level. You can not get every new Apple product, etc. But that's been normalized and they feel they are struggling when they can't get the shiny things. They typically can afford housing but have to sacrifice on location, commute, schools, etc. The "$15 federal minimum wage" topic is a good example of the bottom. It's billed as a "living wage" because it's compared to current prices. However, if implemented, just moves the bottom upwards. Their position on the ladder does not change, rents go up and they still have the same affordability issues they do right now.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  I don't think the ratio is something you pin, I think it's an indicator of an increasing imbalance of power between labour and capital. I'm fine with the job market mostly deciding rates (with a minimum wage pinned to a reasonable standard of living). I don't believe that you need to have a working poor in order to have a functioning economy, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary. I think we should run the economy in such a way as to maximise human happiness, and the working poor exist contrary to that goal. As for shareholders - I don't think they should get either sole control of profit or unlimited upside. I think companies should be controlled by all their stakeholders, including (especially) the workers. After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes.
  - conductr 5y ago
    > I don't believe that you need to have a working poor, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. I would not advocate for a bad standard of living, but I also generally think the bottom's standard of living is not so bad in the current USA. (I do happen to think very wealth folks should be taxed more highly and offset the tax burden of the lower brackets. Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt). > After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes. No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide).
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      > I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. There will always be a bottom, sure - but currently I believe the bottom is far too low, with even full time workers having to use government support to survive and having to shoulder the stress and risk of living paycheck to paycheck. To say nothing of other "bottom" groups like the homeless and people in food deserts - it's pretty messed up that one of the richest countries on earth should not have solved these problems. > Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt But if that revenue was put into government services, then it would benefit the lower economic rungs. > No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Investors can still have incentive to invest while not having total control of the company alongside the founders. If we start a community soup pot and I bring the pot, should I be able to allocate everybody else subsistence quantities of food and keep everything else for myself, just because I brought the pot? That's unethical. > Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. That's not true in reality; most factory workers don't have the capacity to start their own factory, for instance. This is pretty much only true for well off people and software engineers whose means of production is readily available. Courting investors is time consuming and many people can't just go for it. > But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide). This leads directly to the insane income inequality we were talking about. Employees do all the work to generate profit, but get paid as little as the shareholders can get them to accept. You can't justify that ethically.

conductr 5y ago

I get it. It's a common sentiment that I happen to disagree with. You could pay the CEO $20M and have the floor for labor at $200K and the gap is still absurd. I do believe that different jobs should command different pay and that markets should set those rates. I don't believe $200M is the market rate for a good CEO though. I believe the shareholders should get the profit as they grow (that's why they invested) and employees should be paid appropriately to their job/market. In all cases, employees should be treated well. I don't advocate taking advantage of the lower rung. Have some level of purchasing power, etc. But, there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" and the only fix is to climb to a higher level as an individual. Lifting the entire bottom just moves the needle and doesn't improve purchasing power as it just forces prices up as well. Out of curiosity, what is an acceptable gap between min/max compensation?

wpietri 5y ago
> there is always going to be a bottom wage where people "struggle" Oh? Why's that? And how long have you spent struggling at the bottom rung?
- conductr 5y ago
  Welp. I suppose I grew up in trailer parks, single alcoholic mom, food stamps, HUD paid rent, absent dad.... end up working my way through college without debt (FT job + FT course load).... what's your story? Because I know a lot of poor people and their psychology pretty well. My quoted "struggle" is because there is a distinction between real poor and bottom, in my mind. Bottom is just that and can be quite functional and the struggle comes from perception and comparing to other things/people. Sacrifice is necessary at this level. You can not get every new Apple product, etc. But that's been normalized and they feel they are struggling when they can't get the shiny things. They typically can afford housing but have to sacrifice on location, commute, schools, etc. The "$15 federal minimum wage" topic is a good example of the bottom. It's billed as a "living wage" because it's compared to current prices. However, if implemented, just moves the bottom upwards. Their position on the ladder does not change, rents go up and they still have the same affordability issues they do right now.
beaconstudios 5y ago
I don't think the ratio is something you pin, I think it's an indicator of an increasing imbalance of power between labour and capital. I'm fine with the job market mostly deciding rates (with a minimum wage pinned to a reasonable standard of living). I don't believe that you need to have a working poor in order to have a functioning economy, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary. I think we should run the economy in such a way as to maximise human happiness, and the working poor exist contrary to that goal. As for shareholders - I don't think they should get either sole control of profit or unlimited upside. I think companies should be controlled by all their stakeholders, including (especially) the workers. After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes.
- conductr 5y ago
  > I don't believe that you need to have a working poor, but I'm curious to hear the argument as to why it's necessary I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. I would not advocate for a bad standard of living, but I also generally think the bottom's standard of living is not so bad in the current USA. (I do happen to think very wealth folks should be taxed more highly and offset the tax burden of the lower brackets. Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt). > After all, it's their work that's generating the profit, so they should be able to decide where it goes. No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide).
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    > I don't either. I believe there is distinction from poor and the bottom, which is why I like the word "bottom". There is always a floor somewhere and they will be the ones perpetually "struggling" because struggle as they want for more but at the end of the day, they are fed and housed and so on. There will always be a bottom, sure - but currently I believe the bottom is far too low, with even full time workers having to use government support to survive and having to shoulder the stress and risk of living paycheck to paycheck. To say nothing of other "bottom" groups like the homeless and people in food deserts - it's pretty messed up that one of the richest countries on earth should not have solved these problems. > Politically, I feel like even if they taxed the ultra rich more, it would not lead to reduced taxes for others, there would just be more revenue for the govt But if that revenue was put into government services, then it would benefit the lower economic rungs. > No, I just don't agree here. I'm a capitalist even with it's pitfalls. I want investors to have an incentive to invest. After all, it's shareholder's investment that provided worker's a job to begin with and created the company that can provide them a paycheck at all. Investors can still have incentive to invest while not having total control of the company alongside the founders. If we start a community soup pot and I bring the pot, should I be able to allocate everybody else subsistence quantities of food and keep everything else for myself, just because I brought the pot? That's unethical. > Everyone is free to start and manage their own company if they which to have control of profits. That's not true in reality; most factory workers don't have the capacity to start their own factory, for instance. This is pretty much only true for well off people and software engineers whose means of production is readily available. Courting investors is time consuming and many people can't just go for it. > But employee's get a paycheck (... and other compensation that the company decides to provide). This leads directly to the insane income inequality we were talking about. Employees do all the work to generate profit, but get paid as little as the shareholders can get them to accept. You can't justify that ethically.