Bullshit. Markets are not free; they’re regulated. Just that the powerful have more pull when it comes to determining the regulations. And please don’t tell me about Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand job.
in some cases, yes. In others no. But it’s a source of downward wages for low skilled workers and upward wages for those creating the productivity (software engineers).
I never said politicians are corrupt and regulations are not the answer. Maybe another poster did. I said people are different.
I stopped the video early when he dismissed the notion of "unskilled" labor which, in my opinion is a fact. If something I do requires less than a days training, it's unskilled, which means subject to competition from the pool of unskilled workers. Since that pool is great, employers can easily find someone to fill the job and doesn't need to pay them above government set minimum wage. As for the CEO, I think the government should set a multiplier based on the company's lowest paid employee, like it is done in some northern European countries. Japan has one of the world's lowest ratio of pay between CEO and lowest paid employee. There's no question that the pay inflation of C level executives in US companies over the last 30 years has become grotesque. Boards are often made up of millionaires who approve pay packages of other millionaires, with little performance obligations. There's no denying the pressures, the difficult decisions affecting thousands of workers, the 24/7 work schedule, etc. but America stands out as the world's highest differential between top and lowest paid employees, other than in developing countries.
I suppose commies are going to look at what others have with envy and demand a piece of it for nothing. It's what they do. In the real world comparing the wage of the founder and CEO of the next big thing to that of the guy they hired 5 minutes ago to clean the office is moronic. If you want to go after conflicts of interest that rob the shareholders and all sit on the board of each other's corporations I'll get behind that, but it's obvious that this is really about demanding a bigger piece of something based on getting hired at all regardless of skills, investment or market value of the labor. Or course if you pass an idiot law like this, the company will just outsource their low end jobs, you just make direct employees an even bigger liability for the company, making them generally less likely to be hired.
A couple of thoughts on this in no particular order. I didn't see the video but saw some of the comments. Fundamentally, people are paid what they are worth to their employer / client / customer. Some people (employees) understand that. Some do not. Most senior managers and CEOs do. Many on here are presumably earning a return from investing / trading specifically so that we are not reliant on earned income, which suggests we are worth more than we are paid! Re accounting governance, I've thought for a long time that things would be better if companies paid for accounting and shareholders paid for accounts to be independently audited. It is ridiculous that companies pay for accounts, and also pay for auditors to 'mark the accountants homework'. The German system holds merit, with every Exec board including a representative from the workforce. Re: government intervention, someone worked out that in the UK a few years ago - and perhaps applicable to US and other countries - we had c.100,000 people employed by the governmnet to collect taxes, plus c.100,000 people employed by the government to manage the payment of social security benefits. In some cases, citizens were paying taxes and receiving cash back from the government, with two groups of civil servants costing a fortune to manage the processes. By focussing on what governmnet should do, rather than what it is possible to employ people to do, public sector can be smaller, with a reduction in taxes for the rest of us. nb OP seems oddly defensive about any criticism of the video.
There's a difference between a founder and a CEO, who is a paid employee who is supposed to meet targets. However, many don't and continue to get paid extravagantly. And, it's rather uncommon nowadays for a CEO to spend their entire career in one company and your strawman is ridiculous. But yes, the savings from C level significant pay cuts could and would filter down to shareholders, wouldn't it? Of course, the alternative would be to increase employee salaries so that C levels could claim more income too... Yes, I suppose so e companies would try to find a work around to my proposed rule. But I'm sure our government would find ways to prevent such abuses.