It is complete non-sense to think that any one person is worth BILLIONS. 20% of the world's population owns 94% of the world's wealth, there for 80% of the population owns 6%. The overwhelming response to a salary cap is "a big business owner will have no want to grow if they can't make more money" good then they will be unable to keep demand met in a competing market and a new smaller company will rise to meet the consumers demand, killing monopoly. Jobs will still be made and growth will still happen but it will be spread out. The biggest problem I can see is caps will NEVER EVER EVER happen, there is a saying "those who have the gold make the rules" simply put Big government and big business are the exact same people and they wouldn't put a cap on how much they make. Big business bought out our votes along time ago and people just don't seem to see it, donkeys and elephants make no diffrence any more.
There should be one.
Simply because when people allow themselves to be taken by greed, the entire company suffers. If a CEO of a 1,000-worker company who gained 15 million a year gained only 5 million a year, he could raise the yearly gains of every single worker by 10,000 dollars. No matter which way you cut it, it's a great deal for everyone involved. The CEO has happier workers who are more willing to go greater lengths for the company, and likely will get better service, and he still can keep the honestly absurd salary of 5 million dollars a year.
There is a point where taking home another million is a worse decision than sharing that million. Of course it's enjoyable to say "Yeah, I'm taking home 15 million bucks a year, suck on that.", because if you're a CEO, you worker for several years, maybe decades, to get to where you are. But losing contact with the reality of the people in the lower positions makes it so your decisions alienate them, and you run the risk of giving people awful, almost abusive conditions of work when you consider their minimal compensation.
I think CEO's should get a piece of the profits on top of their stated salary. i think the level of income they make should be capped out for salary,but incentives should be put into place to make the CEO want to turn the company around and not just hurt the company worse than it is.
Yes, there should be a ceiling on the income that a CEO is allowed to make each year. It is actually absurd the greed and excess that corporate executives and CEOs take advantage of. No one is saying that there shouldn't incentives for CEOs, and employees at every level in the workforce, to do well but it's really gotten out of hand, especially in the financial sector where bonuses inflate executives salaries beyond reason.
The ceo's position based on the supply and demand curves in the labour market perspective firstly would put the ceo as close to the Y ( wage ) axis as possible as they are a single character in the business as there is no supp,y of people in the position. Ceo's are regularly over qualified and extremely experienced and are heavily impactful of what a company will do in the future so they deserve what they want to be awarded as they are also the ones choosing the wages for the workers. Most people saying that there should be a cap are from people who are too emotional about their wages and want the CEO to suffer also.
People who support these radical ideas are often acting purely out of emotion. The market will determine what an executive receives in salary, and if a limit were to be imposed they would be compensated in bonuses, stock, etc.. There is no reason to believe this would have any positive effect on the economy or the average worker except to tend to a knee jerk emotional response that they may be experiencing.
There's definitely many ways where corporate can find many loops around the income constraint. There is a need on wage, revenue, expenses, etc, i can ramble on how many ways you can find a loop hole. The sad fact is, ceo owners would have to reconstruct ledgers, balance sheets, income sheets. So the question is, why would someone in power waste their own time to make them selves less powerful. There isnt any incentive behind this. Also, sociologist are trying to find a way to fix this(global inequality), but they cant. They rarely know anything about business to begin with/economics.
Credibility-UCSB econ/accounting major with a sociology major as well.
The Post Office looses $6 billion a year and the CEO has a salary cap. It is also the board's decision and the shareholders' decision to decide on the CEO salary. The people who complain about the CEO pay do not even own any of the company so they have no say.
Previous attempts to limit CEO compensation have failed, as corporations find new and more inventive ways to compensate executives. Would the income ceiling include things like executive housing? Would it include company vehicles? Would it include use of the company jet? All of these things can be offered as incentives to avoid income ceilings, and since all companies would be tied to the same ceiling, they would compete to find the most inventive ways around it and attract the best executives. A better solution would be to tie CEO pay to employee pay. For instance, a CEO's salary can only be 12 times higher than that of the average employee. This would give companies an incentive to raise average pay so that they can then offer more salary to get better executives.
If a CEO is paid more than others, it is because their work if valued higher. Corporations use the principle of supply and demand applied to salaries to hire the best in the field, so it makes no sense to put a salary cap on the labour market simply because you think it's not "right". That's just plain tall poppy syndrome at work, and you need to fix that.
Workers should get paid what they are worth. CEOs are no exception. If the CEO's performance is so outstanding that the company chooses to pay accordingly, there should be no ceiling on the amount that the company can pay. It is a decision that should be left to each company - there should be no compensation ceiling.