darael:


drhenryj3kyll:

darael:

addictinginfo:

I think restricting how much executives make as a low multiple of lowest pay in the company is a fantastic idea. 
h/t Conservatives Are Destroying Our Future

I can already see how they’d sidestep it, though: A simple implementation of this would just lead to companies being run in nested shells of wholly-owned subsidiaries, with the person who would have been a subdepartment manager being the nominal executive of the subsidiary that is that subdep.

In which case, the law could include subsidaries and/or owners/shareholders?

Shareholders gets difficult, but yes, that principle is sound.
I mentioned it more as a things-that-need-considering-to-make-it-work than as a this-won’t-work-because; I am thoroughly in favour of the idea in principle.


Shareholders are a significant issue for other reasons, specifically because currently the law requires them to be the focus of economic action in a company, which ties the fate of the company and its workers to an unstable market and also rewards unethical behaviour - ethical behaviour which lowers the value of a company is actually illegal if you take it technically.

I’m personally in favour of ruling, in parallel with the above, that all businesses be to some degree co-operative, because where the shareholders are workers, better workplace treatment and more ethical practice is encouraged. Ideally this would actually take care of income inequality to a degree on its own, but wage limitation is a good failsafe.

darael:

drhenryj3kyll:

darael:

addictinginfo:

I think restricting how much executives make as a low multiple of lowest pay in the company is a fantastic idea. 

h/t Conservatives Are Destroying Our Future

I can already see how they’d sidestep it, though: A simple implementation of this would just lead to companies being run in nested shells of wholly-owned subsidiaries, with the person who would have been a subdepartment manager being the nominal executive of the subsidiary that is that subdep.

In which case, the law could include subsidaries and/or owners/shareholders?

Shareholders gets difficult, but yes, that principle is sound.

I mentioned it more as a things-that-need-considering-to-make-it-work than as a this-won’t-work-because; I am thoroughly in favour of the idea in principle.

Shareholders are a significant issue for other reasons, specifically because currently the law requires them to be the focus of economic action in a company, which ties the fate of the company and its workers to an unstable market and also rewards unethical behaviour - ethical behaviour which lowers the value of a company is actually illegal if you take it technically.

I’m personally in favour of ruling, in parallel with the above, that all businesses be to some degree co-operative, because where the shareholders are workers, better workplace treatment and more ethical practice is encouraged. Ideally this would actually take care of income inequality to a degree on its own, but wage limitation is a good failsafe.

economics politics i have many feelings on this matter

drhenryj3kyll:


darael:

addictinginfo:

I think restricting how much executives make as a low multiple of lowest pay in the company is a fantastic idea. 
h/t Conservatives Are Destroying Our Future

I can already see how they’d sidestep it, though: A simple implementation of this would just lead to companies being run in nested shells of wholly-owned subsidiaries, with the person who would have been a subdepartment manager being the nominal executive of the subsidiary that is that subdep.

In which case, the law could include subsidaries and/or owners/shareholders?


I’m of the feeling that even if they didn’t, it would be a significant step forwards. It’s done wonders in Japan, for instance,

Although it would have to be calculated to make it inescapably clear that this includes bonuses,

drhenryj3kyll:

darael:

addictinginfo:

I think restricting how much executives make as a low multiple of lowest pay in the company is a fantastic idea. 

h/t Conservatives Are Destroying Our Future

I can already see how they’d sidestep it, though: A simple implementation of this would just lead to companies being run in nested shells of wholly-owned subsidiaries, with the person who would have been a subdepartment manager being the nominal executive of the subsidiary that is that subdep.

In which case, the law could include subsidaries and/or owners/shareholders?

I’m of the feeling that even if they didn’t, it would be a significant step forwards. It’s done wonders in Japan, for instance,

Although it would have to be calculated to make it inescapably clear that this includes bonuses,

economics politics i have been saying this for years