At least above subsistence level. It's wouldn't be easy and would require healthy Democratic majorities in Congress. But it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

A maximum wage would probably go nowhere, however.

an inflation adjusted $20 p/hr over the following 5. Regional adjustments would probably be a good idea as well.

What good is is tripling someone's income if their outgo rises even faster?

Making $20 an hour is no better than $7.30 if you STILL can't afford food, housing, and medical care.

as Paul Krugman has spent the last week or so pointing out. Therefore, businesses are unable to raise prices even if their costs go up and that gap forces the new money into the system at the bottom, which is the only thing that has ever sparked true economic growth.

have ever worked? Shortages and inflation are a common result.

they have failed miserably there.

And why do you think price floors work just fine - care to give some real word examples on the scale you are thinking about.

We also have price caps in utilities and many forms of insurance, too.

except in very limited cases. There is no economy that has imposed widespread long term price caps without big problems.

When I posted I had just read yet of another company laying people off while giving bonuses to executives.
I know it would never pass, but there is a Republican myth that the rank and file are draining all the profits from corporations. Most corporations I know of have a very heavy executive payroll which is never considered in these cuts.

We can compromise on the final limit.

They have to live too...

The first $10 mil would be normal tax rate.

What country can you buy on 10 mil? Come on, really now.

There's still ways for them to screw us through stock options and things of that nature.

But, the current status, we are without a doubt being screwed. While a maximum wage or maximum gap may create new ways to work around the rules, to do nothing isn't much better. It will be a continued cat and mouse game of fixing problems and new problem arise.

Is the answer simply to accept being screwed?

The maximum wage should be tied to the minimum wage.

That way the fat cats can't keep sucking all the money off for themselves. They raise health premiums, cut benefits, raid pension funds, all while profits and productivity are at an all time high. The top executives funnel all the profits back into their own bank accounts. they don't even care if the company goes broke in the process, they have a golden parachute.

Just make sure the maximum wage also takes into account all their "performance" bonuses too.

We need a maximum wage to help make sure that a rising tide really will lift all boats. It just seems like commons sense to me and I can't understand why it is not on the table.

I think it would be very popular with the American people if only we had a politician brave enough to talk about it.

And, made some improvement such as including bonuses. We also should make the capital gains tax rate progressive so that people like Romney pay a fair tax rate.

Everyone else in that category is making their money off investments, stock options, interest, etc. It's hard to see how you can impose a maximum on that.

Something like 85% or something?

you would fix the tax rates on those so they can't hide from that income.

limiting the wages of pro athletes and people in the film and TV businesses. When you have kids like to watch sporting events and see movies, the ridiculously high incomes of people in those industries affect my household budget much more than in other industries. I realize that pitching a baseball at that level is a difficult and rare skill, but should the pitcher be compensated so much that I can't afford to take my family to a game? I know the owners rake in the dough too, but seriously the players are playing a game for a living. As Charles Barkley has said, he was very lucky to make tons of money playing basketball, and is now very lucky to make tons of money talking about basketball.

And don't get me started on the film industry. Why should an actress make $10 million for a film when the people behind the scenes, including, I might add, the WRITERS, make such a very small fraction. I don't know at what point it had to evolve that they get paid ridiculous amounts of money like that. Same with the producers and investors. I'm generally happy to have anyone on board with a cause I believe in, but some of those really outspoken film people to me are the same as venture capitalists, making money off of other people.

Sorry for the mini-rant. I just lose it a little when people even bring up athlete compensation.

This may be a little socialistic or maybe a lot socialistic. But, I feel there is no job on this planet which deserves more than a 6 digit salary and honestly the ones that do wouldn't be the CEOs and executives.

When I hear an athlete or star get interviewed and can't form a coherent sentence it drives me crazy. But, then again Sarah Palin can't form a coherent sentence and she could have been our VP.

There is always a way around things.

We either make it where they can't do that or give up.

I wasn't being totally serious with my post, I was pissed because I had just read of another company laying off workers while paying bonuses to the executives.

But, with all due respect, if our answer is always "there is always a way around thing", why don't we just give up and let the gap between rich and poor grow even greater?

Well, some aspects of it anyway, like the executives not being allowed to make a certain multiple more than the lowest paid employee. However, systems that cap earnings would be extremely difficult to enforce in a non-draconian manner. It is far easier to set a minimum wage. While it is slightly inflationary, on balance it is a better deal for the workers when they get more money than it is for them not get more money.

Raising the minimum wage to a sustainable level would be the best thing to do, but it is difficult to get it raised by a few cents, much less to a level which will insure people can live.

We are constantly told how to raise the minimum wage will cost jobs, but we never hear how giving raises and bonuses to executives cost jobs too.

To have a maximum gap would at least require executive to make a choice that if they want more they have to pay more.

Some have brought up the issue of the "other" pay. Well, bonuses would be part of their salary. For things such as stock options consider the current value as part of salary. For things which would fall under capital gains go to a progressive tax so that the average investor pays a lower rate but those who have shifted income to save on taxes raise those rates.

COULD NOT make more than 240x the wage of his lowest paid worker.


Wouldn't it be amazing if we had something like that.

but if you look at executive pay in other countries it is no where near what it is here as far as the ratio between highest and lowest.

make in relation to employees.


It is ridicules here in this country.

I would even like a higher multiple to apply to shareholder payouts.

Something like a 20-1 gap from highest to lowest paid employee (including stocks, incentives, and accountable perks) and 50-1 gap between the lowest paid employee and the highest payout on a dividend.

You can pay the CEO a trillion dollars if you like but that is going to create some very wealthy janitors, data entry clerks, and stockers and break your company. Instead living wages, paying taxes, investing in communities and charities suddenly become very pragmatic.

Actual wage limits do little beyond pulling one or two more rungs of the ladder down into the masses a bit and forward their overly generous chunks to the real stringholders and probably would would whiff on the top rung brought down because they aren't salary focused so much either.

earn whether it's in the form of wages or any other type of income.

Until Reagan taxes were much more progressive.

This is an EXCELLENT idea. I'll be calling my rep today suggesting such a thing. thanks for the idea

progressing to 99.9% at a billion? Of course there would have to be accompanying taxes on gifts, trusts, any instrument designed to transfer wealth within a family or organization.

I agree the inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes and maximum tax rate on income is without a doubt killing the middle class while feeding the 1%.

Dynasties are almost as bad for a nation as Monarchies, the money has to stay in circulation so that everybody gets some.

I'm comfortable with people earning as much as they can as long as it does not involve crapping on other people to do it.

It isn't the wealth or income of the 1%ers that irritates me. It's the fact so many of them actually think us little peons deserve poverty for the great sin of being born while Mom was already sliding into home plate.



Example - the 6 largest shareholders of Ford stock own 84% of all shares. For every $ they paid my uncle over his working life - including his retirement and insurance costs, they made $288. Fortunately when they wanted to whine about money and labor costs the UAW was still strong enough to tell the Ford Family to stop lying and do the right thing.

Look, I really don't mind if the Ford Family is making out like bandits. More power to um. But if one of them is selfish and stupid enough to come tell my uncle he doesn't deserve to afford to see a doctor now that he's worked himself to disability for them then you better damn believe I'm going to petition my government to step in and help my uncle get a little justice.

The maximum gap would do what you are talking about, they can make what they wish, just treat the workers fairly.

Also, don't make the workers the blame for bad profits when the executives make up a very large portion of the total payroll yet a small portion of the total number of employees.

I really don't care how it is done, just stop paying the executives 400 times that of the average employee then cut working to save money.

We realistically will no more have a maximum wage/gap than we will have a $20 minimum wage, 100% health care, a fair tax system or strong social safety net. We are after all capitalist. That is the way it is suppose to work. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.

But, then again not too long ago it was fantasy to think we would have a black president.

Keep the faith.

And, yes we would have to fix the capital gains tax, tax perks/options/exit packages and include those as part of total income.

I propose a 99% wealth tax on everyone that has more than me.

I hope you make at least $50K

we ought to get rid of it. It's not a humane economic system. Let's accept that and move on.

But, as a country we balk at shifting from Capitalism. Even trying to give everyone health care brings cries of socialism and how our country is being destroyed, so while I would love to see a blend of socialism and capitalism I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

I'd love to be more optimistic but even if we got folks in the streets ... I fear it would be like Greece with the rise of a fascist party (aka Golden Dawn). Too little critical thinking in this country ... at this point even I would take a mixed economy.

Last edited Mon Jun 11, 2012, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)

deregulation in Sweden has led to the same woes as here -

STOCKHOLM | Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:22am EDT

(Reuters) - Fredde and Mickan own a waterfront mansion in the Stockholm suburbs, hire Polish help and have endless cash to spend on state-of-the-art barbecues and designer labels.

They are only characters in "The Sunny Side", a popular Swedish television series, but they drew so much attention to their wealthy neighborhood that an activist group called "Everything for Everyone" chose it for a class war safari.

The tour of the "rich man's ghetto" promised to "cultivate your class hatred". It was a one-off and participants were pelted with eggs but it sparked a soul-searching over growing income disparities in a country known for egalitarian values.

"I think many people would say this is the loss of one part of Swedish identity," said Michael Forster, a senior policy analyst at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Sweden has seen the steepest increase in inequality over 15 years amongst the 34 OECD nations, with disparities rising at four times the pace of the United States, the think tank said.

Once the darling of the political left, heavy state control and wealth distribution through high taxes and generous benefits gave the country's have-nots an enviable standard of living at the expense of the wealthiest members of society.

Although still one of the most equal countries in the world, the last two decades have seen a marked change. Market reforms have helped the economy become one of Europe's best performers but this has Swedes wondering if their love affair with state welfare was coming to an end ...

More here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-sweden-inequality-idUSBRE82K0W320120321

It doesn't matter, anything will be better than this. My preference is socialism. Before you switch to your bookmarks on anti-Stalin, dictators, etc ... you should know that I'm a libertarian communist so adjust your answers accordingly. I'd hate for you to waste your time.

I just know it will never be implemented. That's why I don't invest much emotion in these discussions - they are interesting from an academic perspective but have little relevance to my day to day life.

FWIW I don't think you have much to worry about for awhile in this country. But that depends upon how hard/quickly the austerity hits. Things can change very rapidly as you know. Have a good day.

total disintegration and anarchy would be more likely than socialism.

view the word "socialism" with disdain given history in this country, but I do think the majority would likely agree with the principles of socialism if given the chance to get past sound bites. The problem though is that we don't have an active left to provide the needed organization/education to really make an impact. In fact even in Greece where there is a strong communist party, KKE, folks went stronger for the fascists. I tend to think that might happen here as well. Something has to fill the vacuum.

I just think America is too divided - the gulf between liberal and conservative; red state vs blue state; christian fundamentist vs everyone else is real and growing. That gulf will not be bridged by hard times - exactly the opposite in fact. Which argues for the status quo instead of an unified and orderly transition to a completely new economic and social order.

and that gulf is continually stoked by those who only gain from the discord. And, yes, the status quo would just as likely deepen into fascism as anything else (or perhaps quicker than anything else).

I will fight against that happening, as long as I live in this country, but it is a very formidable task at best.

I'll form a management company and sell you my services. Thus, no wages.

This is only the first thing that comes to mind. There will be an entire industry devoted to getting around that stupid rule.

they prefer to be paid in stocks what with the low capital gains tax and all.

/also if you go after their wages *and* stock options companies will just start providing more services/goods free of charge. Maybe you don't get paid as much but one of the perks you now get is a mansion provided for by the company. And free food, vacations, servants, etc

Yes, there are issues and people will come up with work around, then we will fix that problem too.

My point was currently executives are paid $475 for every $1 employees get paid that is average executive compared to average employee, not the highest to lowest.

We of course could tax the crap out of the rich, which is fine with me, we can do lots of things which will fix the problem.

As far as I am concerned, flush Capitalism and go to another system or design a new one using the best parts of the others.

But, something needs to be done.

and bumping up the minimum wage.

we also need to do something about the Capital Gains tax.

with reexamining loopholes, exemptions, etc. And that would include lumping all capital gains in with any other kind of wages.

So don't tax wages at one rate, capital gains at another, inheritance at a third, and so on. Any money you get this year for whatever reason is your earnings. Lump it all together and tax that at whatever rate.

Then we can work on fiddling with the actual percentages.

We at times hear of "simplified" tax systems, most are suggested by Republicans who when the numbers are crunched the rich still do better. Also, usually they don't bring in enough revenue, so cuts are needed.

I am not a tax expert, but I have felt someone should be able to create a "fair - simplified" tax system which really would be fair to all.

The problem is what is fair? I don't know. What I DO know is the tax system we have now is broken.

But, I do like your suggestion.

Companies don't pay employees based on how much they can afford to pay them. They pay them the lowest possible wage required to attract and retain the employees that they want. If you put a cap on executive pay, that might leave more money for the shareholders, but it won't affect how much low paid employees make.

The idea of a "maximum wage" -- a cap on income tied to a minimum wage -- is actually picking up some international steam. The Egyptian labor movement has helped make a maximum wage a principal demand of the Tahrir Square movement.

In the recent French presidential election, candidate Jean Luc Mélenchon ran from the left on a platform that demanded a maximum wage, and his income cap advocacy has pushed the eventual presidential winner, Francois Hollande, to promulgate regulations that cap CEO pay — at enterprises where the government holds a controlling interest — at 20 times the pay of each enterprise’s lowest-paid worker.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, the Dodd-Frank legislation includes a clause that requires U.S. corporations to disclose the ratio between their CEO pay and the pay of their median worker. Corporate America has unleashed a ferocious lobbying assault against the measure, and the SEC hasn't yet written the regs necessary to enforce the mandate. The AFL-CIO is leading a campaign to get the SEC to act.

Franklin Roosevelt would no doubt approve of all this. In 1942, he proposed a 100 percent tax -- a maximum wage -- on all individual income over $25,000, the equivalent of about $350,000 today. More on the history of the maximum wage idea in the United States here.

While I knew I didn't have an original thought I didn't know it had such a history.

this is exactly what thy want. No, not for execs... no, we could not have that.

They want to go back to the 18th, century when Adam Smith actually argued for a living wage... because England had Maximum wage laws.

By extension so did the Colonies.

Would it be bad for me? No.

Am I supposed to be opposed to it on ethical grounds? Why? If you can make $10 million exploiting workers by February, take the rest of the year off.

Am I supposed to be opposed to it on pragmatic grounds? The guy who made $10 million by February created 6 more $10 million/year jobs during his 10 month vacation.

As a practical matter, it would be implemented by creating an additional tax bracket on earned and unearned income above some arbitrarily large number, say $10 million.