Executive / Ownership Remuneration – Income Disparities in the Workplace
1. There is a chart from an article in Fortune magazine by Chris Mathews dated 15 July 2016 under title “This One Chart Shows How Obscene CEO Pay Has Become”. fortune.com/2016/07/15/ceo-pay-2/ Obviously from his use of the word ‘obscene’ Mr. Mathews is not happy with how earnings for executives have risen over 900% since the 1980s’. Are the current disparities in earnings between those at the top and everyone else reasonable and fair, and is there benefit in allowing the apparent trajectory of recent decades to continue?
2. Some believe the out-of-step increase in compensation for those at the top which has occurred since the 1980s’ is directly related to the social acceptance and implementation of policies in line with theories associated with ‘trickle-down’ economics and Reaganomics. Are they related?
3. Referring back to the chart, clearly there has been a remarkable degree of change in relative compensation going to CEOs in recent decades, which demonstrates relative levels of compensation to earners are clearly mutable, not static. Why then does it seem so difficult to change the current problem of huge disparities in remuneration?
4. Should anyone make 10-20 million dollars a year just for doing their job when other people, for equal time spent working, barely make a living wage?
5. Some suggest the answer is to give more money to those in political leadership positions, but wouldn’t that clash with the foundational idea of representational equity which applies to our elected representatives in our ‘House of Commons’?
6. Is the problem due to generalized tacit acceptance in our times of the idea that measure of value, worth, and accomplishment is intrinsically bound up with money? Why has ‘money’ become so important and seemingly a value in itself?