I've been thinking a lot about a maximum wage. For example, let's say the maximum amount of moneya person can make in a year is ten million dollars. That's still a lot of money, enough to motivate people to continue trying to climb the ladder. Wow won't want to just give all that dress money up at the end of the year so they will use some of it to invest in their companies, hiring more people and paying current employees better. This will help with unemployment and getting people off of government assistance. More people will want to work since they'd actually be able to support their families an more people will be paying taxes which would help with the national budget issues. This would help close that enormous wage gap from CEOs salaries have increased over 800% in the last couple decades where as the middle class workers wage has only increased five percent. Thoughts?
I think they are doing something like that informally in Denmark, where top wages above 16 times the lowest wage is generally frowned upon. The US and much of the world had such a system in the 1950s with a 90% marginal tax rate on top incomes. That really discouraged overblown salaries for management and caused firms to distribute more income to shareholders and invest more in productivity and R&D for the long term.
I believe you will find that if you look into the subject of maximum wage, while it has not been as popular as minimum wage, that it will cause problems in the same way as minimum wage. In World War II for instance, FDR instituted price controls and wage freezes. In order to get around these wage freezes, employeers started offering benefits like health insurance. It was a way of attracting talent while getting around the fact that they couldn't raise wages beyond a certain point. If you institute a maximum wage, I suspect you will see very much the same sort of practices carried out, even if it now would only affect fewer individuals. For instance, in 1993 Bill Clinton attempted to institute a CEO pay cap, but companies largely got around it by pivoting to issuing large stock options instead of direct income. In the same vein, businesses could move operations or headquarters to more business friendly environments where they could pay a higher wage for the talent that they feel they require.
Several predictions of a wage cap: Immediate talent brain drain - NYC as a financial epicenter would essentially relocate to London, UK overnight; talented CEOs would seek employment overseas as well; patent holders, same thing; technologists, same thing - entertainers, athletes - they would all depart - the latter may take a bit longer as leagues are tough to set up. What keeps talent in our country is freedom to earn what you are worth. Original poster - the point about economics that you miss, and if I sound any kind of way I am not trying to please believe me, is that the economy is NOT a zero sum. If your neighbor makes $20M, it doesn't mean that he took money away from you. In fact, it's just the opposite. He now has money to spend on businesses where you are employed. I used to be very liberal from a fiscal standpoint. I thought it unfair that a rich man could be rich and a poor man could be poor. However, the morality of my emotion veiled the morality of merit in a free market.
Wages are not the problem. Rents are the problem. And they should be abolished or taxed away whatever their level, not just when they exceed some arbitrary limit.
a maximum wage would encourage more competition in the free market, the patriot capitalists who remain in America would invest here to create new talent, who would then compete with the traitors who left for more money. Trump has taught the people that we can protect our free market and get high wages, it is not a liberal or conservative practice to impose tariffs on countries that steal our talent.
I think that the big problem we are facing isn't the high ceos wages, but actually the accumulated capital, which is increasingly holding its breath fearing of the negative situation it has been slowly building for the last 35 years, not making investments, buying safety in state bonds for zero or even negative interest rates, while demand stagnates and debt can't give the temporary solution it used to give in the past, because those who were giving credits are the same few capitalists who are holding their breath viewing that the increasing private and public debts that have been created, because of luck of money for households and governments can't be repayed or even refinanced.. Of course the top management is the best ally of shareholders and big capital, so reducing their maximum wage would be a nice move of taking out their allies before going for the "big fish".. In the time being, i don' t think of it as a feasible option, big companies along with their favorite sponsored politicians will go ballistic blocking any such reforms, maybe in the next soon to come big crisis, when the next Sanders will have the guts not to call himself a democrat socialist, but a socialist and still amaze the voters..
How would a wage cap increase competition? If you put a wage cap on the CEO of Apple, Gay man, a liberal man, and all of his engineers that created the iphone, the ipad, why would they stay in the United States if they could go to England and make the billions that people line up to pay them? Wages drive immigration. Tampering with them would have an equal and opposite affect. I gave you reason why they would leave, please let me know why they would stay? Tariffs are a very malicious practice. For you to support tariffs, you really have to not give two cents about people in other countries. Tariffs are often focused on the goods that very poor economies are producing to make money like crops. If you impose a tariffs on poor African countries, you freeze them off from the biggest consumer in the world. Trump is not really a conservative. He is a hodge podge of a lot of ideas. He is a brand more than anything less someone that adheres to consistent political or economic ideas. True conservatives would never support tariffs.
they can leave and sell their products to england, they would lose access to the American market. we have the potential to invest in our own people and create new talent here to replace the loyalists of england.
Question was simple...what would make them stay? If Apple leaves, they don't go by themselves. Oracle, Microsoft, Salesforce...they all go. No one is going to stay here and let the government confiscate their earnings. You would never see a big budget movie made in US again. May take a few years, but the result would be inescapable - complete talent drain.
Why are CEO's singled out when complaining about high income earners? A look at Forbes top 100 list of income earners comparing the top 100 celebrities and and the top 100 CEO's, Taylor Swift a musician came in first with an income of $170,000,000, followed by J. Michael Pearson CEO of Valeant Pharmaceutical International as second with an income of $143,077,442. The top 100 celebrities had a total income of $5,128,000,000, or an average of $51,280,000 and a median income of $46,000,00. The top 100 CEO's had a total income of $3,039,053,167, or an average of $30,390,532 and a median income of $24,333,035. Combining both list shows the bottom 73 of 200 highest income earners were all CEO's, making less than the lowest paid of the 100 celebrities. Maybe we spend too much on entertainment and not enough on needs?
Min wage and "wage inequality" is a "progressive" talking point, and targets a group who 1) is more likely to be conservative and oppose the "progressive" agenda 2) makes a convenient enemy suitable for a class warfare strategy It really has nothing to do with "justice" or fairness. Its all about politics and how to take control.
if businesses leave America, we will invade whatever country they move to and take their money and return it to America so it can be invested in talent here. they need America more than America needs them, they will stay because we protect the money of the rich with our military force.
Maybe because their immense incomes are unrelated to any productive contribution? Maybe we give too much to rent seekers, and not enough to producers.
we didn't take the iraqi oil, we put it in the world market to be controlled by the rich bankers using the petrodollar. no patriotic American got richer with the iraq war invasion, it made half of America poorer and the other half richer who were invested in the markets. President Trump will use the military patriotically to make poor Americans richer by taking your money in foreign lands with lawful government force, and repatriating it back here to be invested in creating high wage jobs for the Americans left behind.
Trump said we "might get another chance" at Iraqs oil. Can we count on your support if some of the stolen billion$ fund entitlements? I mean, it appears you're not put off by blood money, so long as it isn't yours.
if we must go to war for oil it shall not be for the rich bankers, but the average American's prosperity. the poorer half of America who voted for President Trump are underemployed on minimum wage, or unemployed, and high wage oil jobs from those wars could fix that.
I of course was being facetious in suggesting the US could or should, wage war for profit. In response to your assertion that the US should pursue, and confiscate assets from the wealthy who opt to migrate rather than succumb to exorberant taxation. Either is a modern manifestation of privateering.
Why stop at $10,000,000? Why not make the maximum wage $100,000/year? It's a stupid idea to begin with, so don't stop halfway...
a maximum wage would create downward pressure on the wealthy, where they would be mandated to trickle down their money to the peasants with lawful government force instead of keeping it for themselves. if the wealthy decide to illegally immigrate America's money overseas to evade a maximum wage, tariffs use lawful government force with taxation to prevent the wealthy from doing that. war is also apart of the American economy unfortunately, and lawful government force should be used to confiscate assets from the wealthy instead of making them richer. the wealth that comes from waging wars for profit should be instead given to the Americans left behind who voted for President Trump.
It's actually rather complicated, if you look at HOW income is acquired annually by the wealthiest. From Forbes lists of top 100 incomes which they have one list of celebrities and another of CEO's, combining them results in the top 100 containing only 21 CEO's and 79 celebrities. Additionally you will find names such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, to name just a few of the wealthiest who often are shown to experience massive increases or decreases of their wealth in a single year completely missing from the list. Some billionaires can be found to be paid a single dollar each year. I believe even Donald Trump has agreed to cap his pay at $1, although I think he should instead take the $400,000 each year and send it to www.pay.gov to reduce the Federal debt. While it would accomplish the OP suggestion of a $10 million maximum, an amusing if not absolutely ludicrous suggestion could be the creation of a NEW Federal agency where celebrities, CEO's, and any others who might be expected to earn large income, were to have their worldwide earnings accumulated by the Federal agency who would then distribute to them up to a maximum of $10 million each year with the excess confiscated by the IRS? Setting a maximum wage would most likely result in the creation of new ways to transfer wealth and essentially set a minimum wage of $10 for more executives. Why do we have a debt ceiling? Every time its' reached it's simply increased.
