this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
78 points (95.3% liked)
AskUSA
632 readers
10 users here now
About
Community for asking and answering any question related to the life, the people or anything related to the USA. Non-US people are welcome to provide their perspective! Please keep in mind:
- !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world - politics in our daily lives is inescapable, but please post overtly political things there rather than here
- !flippanarchy@lemmy.dbzer0.com - similarly things with the goal of overt agitation have their place, which is there rather than here
Rules
- Be nice or gtfo
- Discussions of overt political or agitation nature belong elsewhere
- Follow the rules of discuss.online
Sister communities
Related communities
- !asklemmy@lemmy.world
- !asklemmy@sh.itjust.works
- !nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
- !showerthoughts@lemmy.world
- !usa@ponder.cat
founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is the answer I intended to write. It's a mistake to tie to another abstract metric, like "what was it in 19XX, raised for inflation."
The only exception I'd make are for nonprofit businesses, which you could build into the equation anyway, and some exception/grace period for unprofitable businesses since there are variations in profitability (I'd even be ok with government subsidies to fill in the wage difference if the business has community value).
Essentially, if a business is making profit, the "cream" skimmed off the top after refilling the "costs" jar, that is in no uncertain terms the excess life value being taken from the workers. If the CEO, shareholders and C-suite are going to take that, I actually don't have a problem with them making more money or having a better share of profit, but every person working there should have a livable wage first. That said, yes, I think executive pay should be a multiple of the lowest-paid worker.