Why would I be a CEO for twice the pay as the clerk? I’m sandbagging it all day long at those rates.
I advocate for what I call “Universal Ranked Income”: Everyone gets $10,000 a year by default, while jobs get a fixed amount, no negotiations with a company. it is decided for a job class to be assigned to a rank by the whole nation, regardless of location. Getting an education or holding a job replaces the basic income - $12k to $20k for a student based on grades, $40k if a waiter, $60k or 80k ranks for higher labors, $100k as a CEO. There are absolute income and wealth caps, the taxes also become increasingly higher for each pay grade. After taxes, a store clerk gets $30k, and a CEO is down to $60k.
In effect, that means “best” occupations are only twice the value of a regular job, instead of the fiscal insanity we see with CEOs have 1,000x+ the income of a normal human. Only 6x the income of someone who isn’t working. Also, having fixed incomes might help prevent inflation, since corporations have to target job ranks for pricing. UBI also gives everyone benefits, such as basic shelter, generic food, healthcare, a boring car, utilities, and so forth. Money is solely for lifestyle upgrades and luxuries, rather than for buying necessities.
By having universal benefits and a modest amount of money, workers would be able to freely unionize, strike, participate in politics, or avoid bad workplaces. Without being held hostage by capitalism, people can help decide the direction of society without having to sacrifice their wellbeing.
FragrantGarden@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Sidhean@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
World needs a lot more store clerks than CEOs, as it turns out
FragrantGarden@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
No doubt there!!
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
Presumably, because you like the stuff you do. Some people like guiding things, others want to work construction, ect. Pay should just reflect the effort, risk, and knowledge involved with a job. If you don’t want to be a CEO and that isn’t a terrible choice, that is a good thing. It should be out of passion, not money, that people pursue a particular career.
ErmahgherdDavid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
If pay reflects risk then in your system we need to also actually hold CEOs accountable because in the current system CEOs can do abhorrent shit, get a slap on the wrist, resign with a multi-million-dollar golden parachute and get another exec job a few months later. Let’s have prison sentences for exec misbehaviour. Then I’ll agree that they deserve that danger money.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
To that end, I had some thoughts I have from my notes:
-A-
I think leadership pay rank should be decided by workers below the leadership role, unlike most job classes. The wait staff at a restaurant can vote whether their manager gets $40k, $60k, $80k, or even $100k, but that takes away from the proceeds of the restaurant. This means that workers have to decide what is fair and makes sense for their restaurant, else it goes under. Fired or resigned workers can still vote for leadership from their prior workplace, provided they still are receiving retirement benefits. Every day you work at a pay grade for a job, you get a 1:1 ratio of paid sick leave or retirement. This encourages workplaces to focus on the happy retention of veteran workers, rather than churning through “green” staff.
Of course, the workers and managers at that restaurant can cast votes for the leadership above their location - say, for example, the McDonald’s CEO. So the CEO has to convince their workers that they have the best interests of the business in mind, else they lose their pay. Or worse, get expelled from leadership outright.
-B-
While in debt from the collapse of a company, an leader can’t receive their personal income beyond Rank 0’s $10,000. The excess earnings from their income is used to pay for debts. Retirement months and savings are also confiscated to pay for the debt.
One of the elements I have in mind for the proposed system is a hard cap on personal income, wealth, and assets at up to $100,000 each, totaling $300,000. Anything beyond the limit is automatically confiscated by the government. This gives the government incentive to pursue white collar criminality.
Companies, of course, should be considered separate entities - which means that they can’t directly nor indirectly support the lifestyle of a CEO. Companies also have soft limits on wealth and assets that is tied to employee headcount and pay ranks. We will need mechanisms to provide for retirement and AI displacement, too.
FragrantGarden@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
I see your thought process here. I am just being pedantic about the 2x based on the amount of stress differences between levels at my company, but we likely share the overall gripe against capitalism. Passionism sounds like a way better economic philosophy.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Why would I be a CEO for twice the pay as the clerk?
because you went to business school and like the challenge of heading a company?
sobchak@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Just capping CEO pay as some percentage as the lowest paid employee at the company would solve some of this; which I think Sanders suggested before. I suppose it would have to extend to every “contractor,” and “gig worker” they use too. The “ranked” income suggestion could cause problems because it ignores supply/demand. I find “ranking” kind of dubious too, because some “unskilled” labor is much harder and undesirable for the worker to do than other work that requires degrees; so these workers should be paid more, IMO. I’m also fine with somewhat predictable inflation; prevents people from hoarding wealth.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
That is why an ERK metric would have to be standardized: how many hours are spent on exertion, what environmental conditions that are involved with that career, the odds of dying horribly, how many years of education to be competent, and so forth. That is why I would consider Lumberjacks should have the highest pay grades - their job is not just requires physical effort, intelligent tree management, and so forth - they also tend to have the highest fatality rate among professions. Trees are unpredictable when they fall down, and a hardhat won’t prevent getting brained.
In any case, I think supply/demand being ignored would be a good thing. It is by manipulating that, companies can exploit their workers. We lose some of capitalism’s efficiency, but it feels like much of it is wasted already - just look at the paychecks of the wealthy. What I am proposing is replacing the distortion presented by excessive wealth and power, with another that balances the scales. What we lose in potential profit, we instead replace with certain stability.
I did write a bit on shares and stuff. Might reply later, right now I have chores and things to do.