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.
Why would I be a CEO for twice the pay as the clerk? I’m sandbagging it all day long at those rates.
SabinStargem@lemmy.today 3 weeks ago
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?
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!!