From: Tony Williams 

Adam wrote:
> Tony Williams wrote:
>
>> I thought that term might catch your eye. The problem is that the
>> rewards become disproportionately large, leading to huge amounts of
>> wealth locked up in the bank accounts of a tiny number of people.
>>
>> Success should be rewarded of course, but the scale of the rewards has
>> gotten out of control. In the present system once you've got a lot of
>> wealth it becomes easier to get more where it should really be the
>> other way around. A progressive tax system is a good way to achieve this.
>>
>> I rather like the idea of limiting compensation of the highest paid
>> staff to some multiple of the lowest paid.
>>
>
> Ditto. If not then it has to be tied to performance such that if the
> performance of the company is poor then the remuneration to the
> directors etc should be the lowest in the company.
>
> At the moment there is this sort of golden floor so no matter how crap
> the results of the company are, the drectors etc get paid but if the
> results are good then....obviously (apparantly) bonus'es are called for.

Right. That's why I was careful to specify "compensation", not
"wages".

I find it amazing that anyone can try to justify the huge difference
between upper management earnings and that paid to the people on the shop
floor. Say you set the limit at 100, i.e. the worst off gets at least 1/100
of the best. A minimum wage in that company of $50K still allows $5M for
the high flyers and you'll be able to attract better people for most
positions due to the higher wages.

Plus, they have an incentive to make the company more successful knowing
that if the management want to award each others bonuses then everyone will
get a share.

--
Tony

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5