American here, watching from afar. I personally do not mind the socialist overtones of the measure. I think a big problem was that it aimed for an unrealistic

American here, watching from afar. I personally do not mind the socialist overtones of the measure. I think a big problem was that it aimed for an unrealistic ratio (1:12). A ratio that was closer to existing practice might have been more tactically effective. If at first you fail, try, try again (somewhere else)! What I really like about the 1:12 idea is that a more practicable version of it would put in place an incentive for self-interested and self-serving execs and board members to look after the wellbeing of employees in a more substantial way than the "career advancement" programs and similar palliatives that are currently fashionable. At the moment there are few real incentives in place for companies to look after employees, and this feeds into the ghastly and unseemly wage inequality that we're seeing. Obviously there would be an ongoing game of closing loopholes, but that's always been the case with things like taxes, so the difficulty of implementing something like this is not a showstopper in my mind. The worries about talented execs leaving in droves seem to me to be speculative; if anything, I wonder whether companies might benefit from the flight of execs who are there primarily for the extremely generous compensation.