3 ms·

If we’re at the point where that’s the problem I think we won’t have a problem anymore This isn’t an academic exercise, there are millions of people struggling

If we’re at the point where that’s the problem I think we won’t have a problem anymore This isn’t an academic exercise, there are millions of people struggling while a small handful live in extreme luxury, the whole point is to fix this problem The actual number figure is less relevant than having things rebalanced - greed based inequality is like ebola it rapidly destroys families and communities. Just eliminating that alone is a great start

gruez 4y ago
> If we’re at the point where that’s the problem I think we won’t have a problem anymore You're making it sound like that's an issue that won't show up for years or decades down the line, but the effects (ie. manufacturing companies being penalized more than high tech/knowledge work companies) will show up on day 1. >This isn’t an academic exercise, there are millions of people struggling while a small handful live in extreme luxury, the whole point is to fix this problem >The actual number figure is less relevant than having things rebalanced - greed based inequality is like ebola it rapidly destroys families and communities. Just eliminating that alone is a great start Easing inequality is a laudable goal, but doing it in an unfair way is no way to get public support for it.
- AndrewKemendo 4y ago
  Nobody is penalized anywhere - it caps how much greed can net you It means that if you're in the business of strawberries then your overall value is tied to the relative increase in value of a new strawberry producer. and the accompanying competitive labor rate. There's likely an equilibrium between relative wages across an industry given this constraint. Aka if you want to start a strawberry farm you're never going to be a billionaire. If you're in manufacturing your overhead is higher, so wage inputs are higher, so you'll never be a billionaire but your employees will be better off than they were in a regime where you took the majority of the ownership. But I'll let you define what would be a "fair" way for you Limiting and checking power is the entire purpose behind democracy We should do everything we can to eliminate the possibility of outsized ownership of any productive capacity. Diffuse power is the best kind.
  - gruez 4y ago
    I think we're arguing over different things. I'm not arguing against the concept of CEO pay caps in general, only the specific proposal of capping CEO pay by the lowest paid employee.
    - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
      To be clear it’s not a cap on the CEO specifically it’s any member of the org, cannot make more than a multiple of the lowest. This isn’t some harebrained idea it’s well studied and everyone except CEOs and Boards like it: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611289 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611289

gruez 4y ago

> If we’re at the point where that’s the problem I think we won’t have a problem anymore You're making it sound like that's an issue that won't show up for years or decades down the line, but the effects (ie. manufacturing companies being penalized more than high tech/knowledge work companies) will show up on day 1. >This isn’t an academic exercise, there are millions of people struggling while a small handful live in extreme luxury, the whole point is to fix this problem >The actual number figure is less relevant than having things rebalanced - greed based inequality is like ebola it rapidly destroys families and communities. Just eliminating that alone is a great start Easing inequality is a laudable goal, but doing it in an unfair way is no way to get public support for it.

AndrewKemendo 4y ago
Nobody is penalized anywhere - it caps how much greed can net you It means that if you're in the business of strawberries then your overall value is tied to the relative increase in value of a new strawberry producer. and the accompanying competitive labor rate. There's likely an equilibrium between relative wages across an industry given this constraint. Aka if you want to start a strawberry farm you're never going to be a billionaire. If you're in manufacturing your overhead is higher, so wage inputs are higher, so you'll never be a billionaire but your employees will be better off than they were in a regime where you took the majority of the ownership. But I'll let you define what would be a "fair" way for you Limiting and checking power is the entire purpose behind democracy We should do everything we can to eliminate the possibility of outsized ownership of any productive capacity. Diffuse power is the best kind.
- gruez 4y ago
  I think we're arguing over different things. I'm not arguing against the concept of CEO pay caps in general, only the specific proposal of capping CEO pay by the lowest paid employee.
  - AndrewKemendo 4y ago
    To be clear it’s not a cap on the CEO specifically it’s any member of the org, cannot make more than a multiple of the lowest. This isn’t some harebrained idea it’s well studied and everyone except CEOs and Boards like it: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611289 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2611289