Sure. I think we have come to the conclusion that relative to most people top executives are paid well. We can disagree with the multiplier, but if we agree to average salary in the US as being in the 10s of thousands of dollars, and the CEO pay almost always being in the 100s of thousands or millions, it is still a big difference.
As would I. Not sure how to find that. Here is a pretty good article from the economic policy institute. One of their conclusions is that top earners are experiencing wage growth much faster than most people.
I am against this, as it would effectively tax poor people at a higher rate as a percentage of their income compared to rich people. I donāt think rich people should pay less percentage of income than poor people.
I think separate data may be tough to find, though maybe if one wanted to do the work. Most things would show significant wage stagnation for a long time now except for higher earners. Itās a pretty big factor for the massively growing income inequality.
A large decline in labor unions has coincided with the stagnant worker wages. Maybe they arenāt related fully Iām just pointing it out.
You can find a lot of data on wage stagnation over the years and it just doesnāt fit for say the top 25% of earners.
A lot of people love to talk about percentages and effective rates, but at the end of the day what matters is the actual dollars, imo.
Lets say the VAT is 10%:
Person A makes $50k and spends 80% on taxable items ($40K). VAT = $4k (8%)
Person B makes $500k and spends 80% on taxable items ($400K). VAT = $40k (8%)
From an effective rate perspective theyāve paid the same, but from an actual expense perspective person B paid $36k more in taxes.
The more you consumer the higher your effective rate. Everyone would pay based on what they consume. Not the best for debt or the economy, but much less immoral than basically charging someone a fee for working. It also gives the consumer control over how much they pay in taxes.
I donāt really have a problem with reasonable progressive taxation, but if weāre talking purely about what is moral/immoral when it comes to taxation Iām not sure how you can justify making one group pay more than another for the same thing.
I doubt it exists. Most companies donāt even publish their financials let alone C-suite pay.
I think there are a lot of reasons for that. This isnāt meant to be sexist, but obviously an influx of female workers is a factor. Technology has been a big factor and, back to the topic, automation/A.I. will only make the gap widen.
Based on what we know, the CEO/average worker pay gap is probably wider than optimal. I just wanted to add some context.
This is an interesting article and even talks about how small wage increases for some increases profits.
What we have seen (pre-corona) is record profitability. Itās not like big businesses couldnāt give money because they didnāt have it. They chose not to. Airlines didnāt save for rainy days or five employees increasesā¦they sent money back to their wealthiest people.
To me the idea that as profits rise the companies employees will benefit is demonstrably wrong. Or at least demonstrably often not the case.
All spot on. Collusion could be another reason? I think a lot of the old established Econ 101 principles in regards to how businesses will act is wrong or at least not always right. Often companies working together (on some things) makes far more sense than real competition on all.
If person B is me, I spend still only spend 40K, and invest a huge percent of my income. Then I pay 4K in tax on 500K of income, or 0.8%. Can the person A possibly get their expenses down to 4K, so that their tax rate is 0.8%. Would be damn hard.
Problem is there are people out there that make so much that they just end up spending so little, and end up hoarding wealth. This system will allow them to hoard more. It is what I would do under that system.
Gotta give you a little crap here. Above you wanted to leave out morality. Itās all good.
I donāt think it is unreasonable to consider the best outcomes for the whole, over the individual. I have heard many good arguments on this premise.
A CEOās job is managing people. They really donāt have to know anything about the industry that they operate in, they just need to know how the have and incentivize people qualified in said industry. Period.
I dunno. Wages may be relatively stagnant, but what about economic mobility? Obviously, every company is different, but where I work we are pretty good about paying out discretionary bonuses and promoting people after a good year. We also almost always give internal employees a shot at a new jobs before hiring outside. Itās not unusual for one of our warehouse workers to move into a vacant office job with better pay.
So, wages might be stagnant for certain jobs or across the board, but I still think there is quite a bit of opportunity for economic mobility.
Sure, but certain practices are illegal. What Vox might be getting at (I refuse to read Voxā¦) is stuff like benchmarking in HR. I know we use benchmarking during compensation reviews and we also normally use pay ranges for job roles. So, theoretically, you could be stuck in a pay range if thereās no opportunity for you to get a promotion.
That would be your prerogative, but thatās not the norm. People making $500k donāt invest 90%. They buy McMansions with $4k/month mortgages.
Probably not, but I seriously doubt that many people at $500k would reach .08% either. I would also exclude certain essential items from the VAT making it easier to lower your effective rate.
But like I said, the percentage is meaningless imo.
There is no perfect system. People are going to do what they are going to do regardless.
Lol, well this is why I wanted to leave it out.
Again, this is why I wanted to leave morality out of it because in general, I agree with the above statement. However, when it becomes a discussion about morality I donāt see how you can justify taking more from one group over another.
You are correct here. I am an outlier as far as spending. I get harassed by my colleagues for driving a 05 ford focus.
That makes the idea a bit more palatable.
Well if you accept that those at the top are generally making profits off of other peopleās efforts, then I think you have a pretty good justification. Steve Jobs designed 0 iphones, he assembled 0 iphones. He did on average pay people less than they earned his company (required to have a profitable company). I donāt think any of this is wrong, just that it is justification for higher taxes IMO.
Yeah I donāt want to come off that some companies donāt do things the ārightā or expected way that the Econ 101 books would say. Merely that with the overall trends that might not be the case as much as weād think. I donāt believe the vast majority of businesses view labor as an asset but as a cost. And why increase your cost if you donāt have to?
Yeah I wouldnāt argue that opportunities for economic mobility donāt exist. Merely the idea that is often trotted out that the better the company does the better all of its workers will do the same. It seems that data would tell us the better a company does a small group of people will take by far the lions share of the rewards and the rest may get a bit of something.
Would probably be tough to catch, but you do have lawsuits like the Silicon Valley one (details are hazy but I wanted to say that was around 2015 without googling? I was trying to bring up that the established teachings of ācompetition is good it will create lower prices and competition will make wages go up to hire better peopleā etc arenāt always correct. Beating your competition in every way is one way to profit. Deciding to work with them in certain ways so we both donāt have to harm each other and compete on other aspects is another.
I donāt really have loyalty to car manufacturers. I have found the focus to be a decent car and undervalued on the used market. I bought an 02 for $600 a while back. Drove it for 4 years / 60,000+ miles. Had to put some parts in it to keep it going.
Current focus was $1500, and so far I had it for 2.5 years and put 65,000 miles on it. All repairs have been tackled by me, and have not been more than a few hours.
The last Ford I bought literally left me stranded every single time that I got in it. EVERY time. No one could figure it out, so I unloaded it for something else and will never own another Ford. Thatās my main partiality, I just hate Fords.
My wife drives a Ford Focus and she loves it. Itās a 2010 and has about 210,000 miles on it. We havenāt had any issues at all.
My grandpa if he were still alive would be shocked to see that someone would want to buy something t other than a Chevy. I donāt have brand loyalty on much of anything.
I have that feeling towards Saturns. I had one that was something that made the car un drivable about every other month. I probably got a bad one, but I am not interested in ever having one of those again. Probably not a big deal, as they have been out of production for a while.
I donāt really. That depends on what you mean I guess.
Iām in a higher bracket than others and I donāt make a living off others labor. I make a living off my labor. So how is it morally acceptable to take more from me than someone in a lower bracket? I invested 8-years and thousands of dollars into my education. Maybe folks in a lower bracket didnāt. Iāve gone through the discomfort of changing jobs multiple times to increase my pay. Maybe others havenāt been willing to do that. Iāve spent hundreds of hours studying for certifications, others probably not. But, because Iāve found more success I have to pay more. I donāt see that as moral and, like I said earlier, I donāt really mind paying more from a practical sense. I like having more Super Hornets than Chinaā¦
Didnāt Jobs save Apple and help turn it into the powerhouse of a company it is today? How many thousands of people have jobs because of Jobs?
A lot more goes into an iPhone than just the parts. Tons of people at Apple donāt touch an iPhone directly nor do they design anything and theyāre an integral part of the company.
I donāt follow the logic here at all.
Itās hard not to when itās listed on the P&L under expenses, lolā¦
They were really solid cars up until 2012 or the new model. They installed a terrible automatic transmission (I think called the power shift). It is terrible I guess, and there is a class action law suit against ford over it.
A good strategy is to buy those model years in manual form if you like manuals. The automatics drive the price down for all of them, but the manuals are still really good cars.
My wife is next up on the car list and it will be something bigger for the kids. Iām not a huge crossover fan, but Iām sure she will go down the crossover or SUV route.
The air in between components? I am just messing with you here. I think most of what you are talking about is design.
They have a word for this type of work. It is called non-value added work. That does not mean that their job is not important, just that the customer is not willing to pay extra for that work.
Many companies are formed in a pyramid structure. In that structure, those at the top are able to skim profits from others efforts.
Professions like mine and probably yours are usually a bit different. I can concede that we are paid based on supply and demand.
