Personally I would prefer tying the pay of the highest paid employee to the pay of the lowest paid employee. For example, Dr. Bronner's has a rule that the highest paid employees can't make more than 10x the lowest paid employees. Rather than keeping the highest salary from growing, this keeps the lowest salaries growing. What harm could…
Personally I would prefer tying the pay of the highest paid employee to the pay of the lowest paid employee. For example, Dr. Bronner's has a rule that the highest paid employees can't make more than 10x the lowest paid employees. Rather than keeping the highest salary from growing, this keeps the lowest salaries growing. What harm could there be if the CEO is making $3 million but the lowest paid employee is making $300,000. I'm working on a story now about a company where the highest paid make only 6x the lowest paid. In their case, a CEO who makes $3 million would mean the lowest paid employee is making $500,000.
I never thought about that…hm. It’s certainly another option. I most likely wouldn’t go higher than 5x the salary of the lowest paid. I would continue to mitigate perks, stock options, etc.
Personally I would prefer tying the pay of the highest paid employee to the pay of the lowest paid employee. For example, Dr. Bronner's has a rule that the highest paid employees can't make more than 10x the lowest paid employees. Rather than keeping the highest salary from growing, this keeps the lowest salaries growing. What harm could there be if the CEO is making $3 million but the lowest paid employee is making $300,000. I'm working on a story now about a company where the highest paid make only 6x the lowest paid. In their case, a CEO who makes $3 million would mean the lowest paid employee is making $500,000.
https://www.elysian.press/p/an-alternative-to-tax-the-rich
I never thought about that…hm. It’s certainly another option. I most likely wouldn’t go higher than 5x the salary of the lowest paid. I would continue to mitigate perks, stock options, etc.