Pay discrepancy between CEO's and regular workers is to high
Debate Rounds (3)
Argument I: Pay relative to Worth.
Pay is relative to the number of people you served. Someone who served 2 people is paid twice as much as someone who served 1 person. This is a basic and rightful part of any Economy.
An employee in McDonald's is paid for serving $11,300 customers a year (by taking the grand total of customers and dividing by the number of employees.) A CEO is paid for his company serving 22 billion customers a year (1). It's only reasonable that he earns a portionately higher amount. This principle is why the person watching over the business in New York is paid more than the person watching over business in Utah.
This also comes down to worth. In business, your worth is determined by how much you make for your company. This is why you are paid more than Person B when you work harder and longer than Person B. A CEO can earn his company billions of dollars, while an employee does not.
An employee at Mcdonalds might earn his company $50,000+ a year, while the CEO's executive decisions and hard work, making deals and signing off essential paperwork and agreements, might earn the company several billion dollars. An employee, despite how he sees things, isn't very important to the company. A CEO is.
Pro claims that a CEO isn't worth 400x more any someone else. From a social perspective, no, he isn't... But from an economic perspective, and to that specific company paying him, he is. Pro's claim would work if it was society paying the CEO, but it isn't, it's the company.
Argument II: Economic Benefits
Believe it or not, but a successful economy require very wealthy people. The wealthy are the investors in a country. They create the jobs, the businesses, and sponsors your TV shows and local events. They are vital in a successful nation.
Think of it like this:
A Video Game requires $30,000,000 to make now. If every person had $50,000 in total saving, it would take 600 people to fund the game. Now to make even a 10% profit, the game has to earn $60,000,000, to pay corporate tax and income tax. This isn't likely since very few games earn a profit. It takes a very wealthy person to risk such an investment. Assuming that $30,000,000 goes to a company instead, the profit margins have to be huge to pay off the 600 investors, and the 35% tax and 25% to usually goes to the employees plus the investor's taxes.
Many already agree that Wealth Inequality isn't bad. The wealthy may have as much income as they please so long as everyone else can afford to live. Most people can, despite their complaining, live nicely off their income. Income isn't the problem for most employees, unnecessary spending is.
A problem with decreasing the gap to increase employee paychecks is these two: Inflation and Unemployment.
The more money the poor have, the more everything costs. It's a basic principle. This would destroy the world economy, since the Foreign Exchange runs largely off the Dollar (2). Pro claims pumping more money into the population would work, but it's basic Economics that claims pumping more money into an economy only causes inflation. Besides, $5,000,000 in the hands of one man can do more than $500 in the hands of 10,000 men. Wealth collectivism is vital to having a strong investment base for the economy.
You are worth how much you earn for your company, and the costs of having you are took into account. If the amount of income you earn them stays the same, but it costs more to have you, you better be worth the extra cost. Chances are, you aren't. We see this in Australia, where they have a high Minimum Wage, and unemployment among teenagers (the earners of Minimum Wage) has increased since the new wage was implemented. Unemployment has always increased when the cost per employee increased. Someone who was worth $10 an hour wasn't worth $15 an hour.
Argument III: Income
While Income did decrease since 2000, this is related not to the wealthy, but to the Market Crash and recession. It's common to blame the wealthy, but it isn't their fault. As for the income of today, it has be raising since the year 2010 (3). Pro is wrongly blaming the Wealthy for a grand income decrease of 5%, which is hardly large enough to call one's self a victim or reasonably make the claim that people today are really so much poorer.
Rebuttal I: Destroying the Economy
It's an easy claim to make, but impossible to back up. The economy has been getting better consistently, and one might even say it's not in a recession anymore. If Pro's claim that the wealthy earning so much is hurting the Economy, we would still be in a deep recession, and only getting worse. We have, instead, gotten better and more successful over the decade. Both Economic Crashes we saw was Stock Market and Government related, be it the bubble economy or deregulation, neither had to do with the income of the Wealthy.
Conclusion: The wealthy earn so much because they are worth so much to their company. Their incomes are an important part of a successful economy.
Tvawd forfeited this round.
Tvawd forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF. The amount of it in many places is out of control (causing many companies to fail), but such was not presented in the argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.