4 ms·

> You pay people more, so you have to charge people more Or maybe some overpaid positions will have to accept a cut that they will never even feel in the sligh

by dan_bk 12y ago

> You pay people more, so you have to charge people more Or maybe some overpaid positions will have to accept a cut that they will never even feel in the slightest way. An INcrease of, say, $500/month to reach $4000/month can "change a World". But a $500/month DEcrease to reach i.e. $39'500/month will never even be felt. In economic terms: The marginal benefit of an increasing wage decreases. There is a fuzzy limit where more money does NOT make you more happy.

ma2rten 12y ago
The problem with that is that there are much more workers than CEOs.
- leaveyou 12y ago
  It's not such a big problem if you consider that many CEOs are paid well over 200x more than their nonsupervisor worker. http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/disclosed-the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-employees http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/disclosed-th...
  - Zak 12y ago
    JCPenny, the company with the highest ratio on the first chart appears to employ about 117,000 people[0]. If the CEO gave up all his pay, they would be able to hire 1,795 more people - about 1.5%. Add together the top 20 and it's 18,860 people. Those same numbers likely apply to how many low-paid employees could be increased to around $15/hour[1]. In absolute terms, those sound like big numbers, but the US officially[2] has 9.8 million unemployed people[3] and a great many more working for low pay. 18860 more minimum wage jobs would be less than 0.2%. Flattening out the pay distribution in large companies may appeal to our sense of fairness, but it doesn't actually do much to alleviate poverty. [0] http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/JCP--Number_of_Employees http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/JCP--Number_of_Employe... [1] The underlying assumption being that most of these companies have a large number of minimum wage employees. [2] Unemployment numbers are skewed low because they don't count people who aren't following a specific pattern of job-seeking. [3] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

by dan_bk 12y ago

ma2rten 12y ago

The problem with that is that there are much more workers than CEOs.

leaveyou 12y ago
It's not such a big problem if you consider that many CEOs are paid well over 200x more than their nonsupervisor worker. http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ http://go.bloomberg.com/multimedia/ceo-pay-ratio/ http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/disclosed-the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-employees http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-02/disclosed-th...
- Zak 12y ago
  JCPenny, the company with the highest ratio on the first chart appears to employ about 117,000 people[0]. If the CEO gave up all his pay, they would be able to hire 1,795 more people - about 1.5%. Add together the top 20 and it's 18,860 people. Those same numbers likely apply to how many low-paid employees could be increased to around $15/hour[1]. In absolute terms, those sound like big numbers, but the US officially[2] has 9.8 million unemployed people[3] and a great many more working for low pay. 18860 more minimum wage jobs would be less than 0.2%. Flattening out the pay distribution in large companies may appeal to our sense of fairness, but it doesn't actually do much to alleviate poverty. [0] http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/JCP--Number_of_Employees http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/JCP--Number_of_Employe... [1] The underlying assumption being that most of these companies have a large number of minimum wage employees. [2] Unemployment numbers are skewed low because they don't count people who aren't following a specific pattern of job-seeking. [3] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm