Should there be a maximum wage?

So what makes you think the shareholders don't care? If they don't think the top brass in the company are delivering value for money, they'll either cut their pay or get new board of directors. That's how a limited company works. If the shareholders don't think the CEO's pay is a problem, then it's not a problem.

Well, maybe you didn't care, but the shareholders should. The CEO is not on his private domain :)

I guess what I am really annoyed at is the inequality within a business. Now I am not saying that the guy at the top should not earn a massive income compared to the workers in the company, but to make an example which I also stated earlier - miners in South Africa who go underground and risk their lives get paid less than $10 000 a year U.S. while the executive that runs the show is getting several million a year. The guys risking their lives getting paid rubbish so this guy can make bigger margins is a crime in my mind. The miners in Australi, digging out the same stuff worth the same amount earn around $150000 a year and mining execs still earn massive pay checks. so there is greed at work somewhere when people are payed so little and the company CAN afford to pay them better.

sorry, in my tired state, i read the post wrong! blah! yes, i think there should be a maximum wage because it seems the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Actually this last idea has some appeal to me. It would be difficult to implement but at least it would send a message to companies that if you want to pay a CEO a pile of money everyone else in the company should be living better as well.

Perhaps the minimum wage should be based on the wage of the ceo including benefits etc of the company, so the government sets a minimum that you cant go below, but then if a CEO earns over a certain amount then the minimum wage in that company needs to be lifted by a certain percentage. This would reduce the gap perhaps.

I still believe that if that CEO can prove to increase productivity and profit of the company he works with if his salary increased then if I am the employer then I would risk giving it to him. I think salary is one basic motivator for an employee or a ceo in any way. Why would you put a cap on it if that CEO can deliver better leadership in exchange for the additional perks he is receiving. It is the employer's discretion whether they are happy with the job being performed by their top level management. If they are not they can simply replace them if they are not satisfied. Unlike in the lower ranks were they are protected by law that when they are regularized then they cannot be removed from it without just cause.

I know what you are saying as far as when you have reached the highest level of a wage then what is the incentive to work harder. But We are not talking about maximum wages for middle management and the like. I am talking about capping wages for ceo's etc. These are guys that earn millions of dollars a year and surely once you are earning that much money it ceases to be an incentive. Rather recognition in your field would be the driving force behind working harder.

Well, they are earning that amount for some reason. I am sure a company won't be paying that kind of amount and value if they aren't doing something well, or their work is easy. The thing is, the salary value is an indication of how much one brings in to the table. If those on top were given a maximum allowable wage, will they go further up and do better in their leadership roles or the managing that they do? Think salary as an incentive to drive the talents and skills even of the bottom to top employees. The reward system is in place in most places. So there is a need to bulk up the rewards to drive the world.

surely there is a limit to how motivating higher wages will be. Surely when you are earning 5 million a year then what is another $100000 or even another million. These are the guys that I am talking about - not the guys that are earning $150000 or even $500000 but the guys that are earning massive amounts that you cant even spend.

Unfortunately you're right and this is true in most cases. Execs rarely take the fall for bad management. But, when they do, they fall hard :)

I think that is a fantastic idea. The only problem is at the moment is the bonus structures are weighted so muchin favour of the execs that even if the company loses money hand over fist, they somehow manage to still get their massive bonuses, while the guy on the floor stuffs up a transaction or something on a bad day and gets shown the door!

You only need to look at the wage disparity in some coutries to see how far it has gone. In Australia a mine worker gets a good wage - around $150000 a year. The ceo's get really good wage - millions of dollars a year. In South Africa however mine workers get less than $12000 a year and the Ceo's are getting paid sums of money that is just stupid. And the reason they are paid so much more is because they are paying their workers so much less. It is actually imoral.

Yes, I agree, it is immoral.

Let me rephrase that, an employer will establish a method of how much an employee will earn and when they receive that pay with legal obligations in mind. It doesn't always seem fair.

Yes and as I responded to someone earlier on, what about the idea that if the ceo or managers are paid over a certain amount then the minimum wage that they can pay the rest of their staff should rise by a certain percentage as well. This would either make companies limit the huge amounts they pay the top guys or at least make them increase the pay they are giving to the guys at the bottom.