The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Pay discrepancy between CEO's and regular workers is to high

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 45443
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




The pay discrepancy between CEO's and average workers is outrageous. How does this make any sense? This is the one of the biggest reasons why our economy is failing. The middle class pay is shrinking at an alarming rate. The way I see it, the more money being pumped into the economy the better. If middle class citizens are getting paid more, they will pump more money back into the economy. How does that not make sense? And if they are pumping more money into the economy then businesses will have a higher revenue. I am not saying we should consider communism. CEO's will still be making more than enough. However, no CEO on this planet is worth 400 times more than a hard working middle class human being.


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.

Debate Round No. 1


Tvawd forfeited this round.


Arguments Extanded.
Debate Round No. 2


Tvawd forfeited this round.


Arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
@Ragnar... Your RFD... You should teach Juan how to do one of those XD
Posted by donald.keller 2 years ago
CEO income has increased because profitability as increased. If a company is now earning twice as much, the CEO will earn twice as much. The employee, however, likely isn't contributing anything more today than they were then, while costing the company twice as much in government-enforced benefits.

You aren't poor because else is richer than you, and them being even richer doesn't make you even poorer.
Posted by UltimateRussian 2 years ago
Amen brother
Posted by progressivedem22 2 years ago
I completely agree with Pro on this one -- in fact, CEO earns 380 times the wage of the average worker now, relative to 42 times in 1980 ( It's oddly peculiar that this disparity followed thirty-odd years of trickle-down economics. Coincidence? I think not.

I'll be watching this one. Best of luck.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
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.