Just a thought, and obviously it would likely never happen.
What if legislation was passed that tied the top salary earner in a corporation to the bottom salary earner.

To clarify, what if the top paid ceo or salary earner at walmart could only make 100x what the very bottom earner made. So, we have a person who makes maybe $8k a year, and the CEO could only make $800k? I think our middle class would come back. It would behoove the CEO's to pay their employees better. Just a crazy thought I had. I'd bett the Ceo would try to get the bottom paid earners up to 100k. I also bet there would not be a walmart employee making less than $25k a year after this happened.

Yes, 3 meals from revolution. Otherwise, we've got it too good, just enough to be complacent.

Pete

The middle class in the US which started it by the way.

Is not getting crushed by employers and what the other guy earns.

But by monetary policies, interest rates, salaries not keeping up with inflation.

Over regulation of goods and service pushes the production cost higher.

When you lose the purchasing power of your currency is that the employer's fault.

When you put your earn currency into the banking system, and it loses value it really doesn't matter what the employer pays.

It's a snowball - earn more currency- You and the employer get taxed more- The banks steel more- goods and services cost more.

PS: not saying all companies/corporations are fair.

Agreed. Lowering and eliminating business taxes took away the incentive, and let's face it, corporate CEO's and company owners don't seem to feel like they have any moral obligation to their workers any more. IE: the pay as low as they can get away with regardless of impact.

Yet corporations are making record profits..... :rolleyes:

And it appears to be a clear correlation between low wages and high corporate profits. Corporate CEO's are far more concerned about shareholder wealth than employee earnings (for better or worse).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/.../01/Image2.jpg

In a report released earlier this month, Goldman Sachs chief U.S. chief economist Jan Hatzius noted that the strength in corporate profits is “directly related to the weakness in hourly wages.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-wont-listen/

Do you really believe what you just posted? I think you need to run a few basic numbers based on YOUR example given.
Use the tables the IRS putts out for tax rates..........

Unless of course you think the left has figured out a way to manipulate the laws of mathematics and thus make them lie as well. Then I guess you might be right, maybe.:rolleyes:

I'm watching this change take place right before my eyes. The new tactic is to lower starting salaries, because that's the easiest way to make a cut, then start running more senior employees off the job, where ever they can. Reduced wages through attrition, basically.

Dave

When it's your job to show the big bosses increased efficiencies and a continuously improving bottom line, and no matter what you do equipment or system-wise you just can't seem to pull it off, all that's left is the employees.

And, in todays atmosphere of weak to non-existent union activity, and a workforce that has come to think standing up to the boss makes you a whiner, or whatever.................There is no push back.

I keep wondering how much longer that can last.

Dave

That would be an excellent idea.

Here's some interesting historical data.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3184623.html