Forum Thread

Salary caps for executives. Interesting idea from Sweden

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    As some of you may have read in my previous posts, companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds lean heavily on the food stamp and other government programs to subsidize pay for their workers. These companies pay their employees the bare minimum then allow the government and tax payers to make sure that these workers have enough money to survive so they can continue to work. This is something that needs fixing. There is an enormous problem with the distribution of wealth in this country that needs to be fixed. Check out this video.

    So, the top 1% make roughly 380x their average employee's salary. This is causing the all the wealth to pool at one end of the spectrum and cause stagnation in the economy. The word "currency" is derived from the word "current." In a healthy economy, money needs to flow freely, not pool in one place. There is a bill being proposed in Sweden that would cap salaries. The bill states that no one in the company can be paid more than 12 times the salary of that company's lowest paid employee. This sort of plan would help keep money flowing, reduce dependency on the government, save the government money, foster a healthier economy, ensure that people are fairly compensated for their work, and reduce the people living in poverty.

    I personally think a 1:12 ratio is a little brutal though. I would gladly be in favor of a 1:50 or even a 1:75 ratio (maybe even 1:100). This system could easily replace the minimum wage laws since they are grossly outdated and aren't very effective for long periods of time.

    This would NOT be a redistribution of wealth idea because people are working for the companies that are paying them, not just given handouts. And it still encourages people to work hard and make more money through innovation etc.

    I haven't thought too much in depth about it but I'm having a hard time figuring out too many drawbacks for America as a whole. What do you guys think? Anyone analyzed a system like this before?
  • Independent
    Minnesota
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote: The bill states that no one in the company can be paid more than 12 times the salary of that company's lowest paid employee. This sort of plan would help keep money flowing, reduce dependency on the government, save the government money, foster a healthier economy, ensure that people are fairly compensated for their work, and reduce the people living in poverty.

    I personally think a 1:12 ratio is a little brutal though. I would gladly be in favor of a 1:50 or even a 1:75 ratio (maybe even 1:100). This system could easily replace the minimum wage laws since they are grossly outdated and aren't very effective for long periods of time.

    This would NOT be a redistribution of wealth idea because people are working for the companies that are paying them, not just given handouts. And it still encourages people to work hard and make more money through innovation etc.
    Good topic...I'm going to play the antagonist a little if you don't mind.

    Wouldn't this cause the same reaction as raising the minimum wage? Instead of young teens at the drive through we have seniors (which I personally don't mind since there is great improvement in service). What would happen to those individuals who, at the lowest paying position, are already on the last string with HR? I don't think the highest wages are going to drop, but the lower wage group will just disappear and be replace with sub-contractors (which again may not be a bad deal either.) Wasn't the low wage level designed to decrease the rate of poverty by encouraging businesses to hire unskilled workers?

    Would this action really improve the economic situation or just force it to change? I think the problem is deeper than just take home pay. We have the highest rate of educated poor in our history, and the highest living standard for the poor as well. In the area I live (mining industry died decades ago) poverty has become their culture. Meaning their parents or parent, and their grandparents or grand parent lived in this same situation. Cyclical poverty will not improve because it's generational/traditional for them to live the way they've been raised, even if you fill their bank accounts monthly, they will never invest in assets but continue to raise their liabilities driving them even harder into the ground when the economy goes into drought.

    In short I believe (and I'm not even solid that I believe it) that this is a systemic problem with the culture that can't be corrected through the political society. Now give business a huge tax cut incentive in supporting education (regardless how, grants, scholarships, their own schools etc) and I think that would at least provide the opportunity to correct the problem. And thus we'd have to discuss the subject of what constitutes 'education'.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    KnowledgeCubed Wrote:
    Zach F Wrote: The bill states that no one in the company can be paid more than 12 times the salary of that company's lowest paid employee. This sort of plan would help keep money flowing, reduce dependency on the government, save the government money, foster a healthier economy, ensure that people are fairly compensated for their work, and reduce the people living in poverty.

    I personally think a 1:12 ratio is a little brutal though. I would gladly be in favor of a 1:50 or even a 1:75 ratio (maybe even 1:100). This system could easily replace the minimum wage laws since they are grossly outdated and aren't very effective for long periods of time.

    This would NOT be a redistribution of wealth idea because people are working for the companies that are paying them, not just given handouts. And it still encourages people to work hard and make more money through innovation etc.
    Good topic...I'm going to play the antagonist a little if you don't mind.

    Wouldn't this cause the same reaction as raising the minimum wage? Instead of young teens at the drive through we have seniors (which I personally don't mind since there is great improvement in service). What would happen to those individuals who, at the lowest paying position, are already on the last string with HR? I don't think the highest wages are going to drop, but the lower wage group will just disappear and be replace with sub-contractors (which again may not be a bad deal either.) Wasn't the low wage level designed to decrease the rate of poverty by encouraging businesses to hire unskilled workers?

    Would this action really improve the economic situation or just force it to change? I think the problem is deeper than just take home pay. We have the highest rate of educated poor in our history, and the highest living standard for the poor as well. In the area I live (mining industry died decades ago) poverty has become their culture. Meaning their parents or parent, and their grandparents or grand parent lived in this same situation. Cyclical poverty will not improve because it's generational/traditional for them to live the way they've been raised, even if you fill their bank accounts monthly, they will never invest in assets but continue to raise their liabilities driving them even harder into the ground when the economy goes into drought.

    In short I believe (and I'm not even solid that I believe it) that this is a systemic problem with the culture that can't be corrected through the political society. Now give business a huge tax cut incentive in supporting education (regardless how, grants, scholarships, their own schools etc) and I think that would at least provide the opportunity to correct the problem. And thus we'd have to discuss the subject of what constitutes 'education'.
    Just put mentioned on facebook that the "1" percent owns 24% of all the capital circulation in this country; this has gotten pure ridiculous. Why some single person needs 10 or a 100 billion to be happy, I absolutely do not understand; you never can even spent that on yourself in a lifetime.
    I can only shake my old head, in that less fortunate peope here do accept such. storm the "castle" like they did in the old days does not work nowadays. Neither does it work politically, because the politicians are owned by them. Sure you can introduce the Swedish option; my guess is you never get it done.
    Sorry as I said in many of my threads the dumb American people have no clue that the are run by politicians who are owned and in bed with the wealthy or dictators from institutions like the Pentagon, NSA, etc. Even the Democratic party is in the grip of it. Money is the real "God" not anything else in this country. That is why they say "In God We Trust" which actually means "Money"
  • Liberal
    Other Party
    Llos Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    LAGOM AR BAAST..... look it up
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "The English language has been manipulated by marketeers and journalists into visions and scripts designed to stimulate through sensational exaggerations, the idea of having just the right amount is no longer tolerated. Even the world “sustainable” now comes loaded with connotations and political nuance. The idea of having just the right amount is counter to the way the current consumerist (Western) economy works. If people stopped consuming, then the economy would come to a halt, surely?" - Lorn Mitchell
  • Liberal
    Other Party
    Llos Angeles, CA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree,,,,, but if we (citizens) paid our debts, go back to the gold standard, and mandate deficit caps......along with a flat tax that everyone pays......we would be on the correct path.


    PGR, this isn't rocket science, we can solve these problems as quick as we created them ..... but nobody wants to solve the problem.....The fakers in here would rather pass out happy-meals to the poor than curb their insatiable appetites. That would be asking too much from Gods special people.


    They enter these forums filled with wisdom and a strong desires to be charitable blessing us with these well thought-out opinions. Funny, no one in this forum has ever posted that maybe we should be the ones who SACRAFICE.

    GOD LOVES YOU