i.e. there's only 1 ceo

I understand that market conditions regulate salary (for the most part) - if the CEO wasn't "worth" that much, the company (or board of directors or stockholders or w/e) should be able to find a cheaper employee, right?

But somehow this doesn't end up working so well

In fact, it ends up working in a disgusting and immoral manner

I'm not a specialist on the matter, but you don't have to be to see how bad it is

I think ultimately, people in those positions get there due to pure luck. Whether through family connections (as is usual) or other means

of course there's a massive imbalance and its only been increasing

so they need to moderate CEO pay

whether one can enforce that or not

...

difficult

Okay, so minimum wage is a different topic? I mean, it sort of is

But if you start regulating the "upper bound" on what is a reasonable wage for certain positions, why not a "lower bound"?

GG @Dr.Cosby, you just advanced to level 3!

If it's ridiculous for a CEO to earn thousands of times what his employees earn, isn't it ridiculous for employees to earn not enough to...live?

i think they are two different issues

Perhaps you have a more fancy version of fixing the problem

regulating CEO pay does not impact a large proportion of the lower skilled workers

in the way that minimum wage goes

But without overhauling quite a few systems, I don't see a better solution than increasing minimum wage (both to compensate for inflation, as well as realistic economic opportunities in the places where they live)

Yeah, simply cutting CEO pay isn't going to do much, sure

increasing wages artificially doesn't solve anything

you know why?

if everyone on the bottom rung is earning more....

the market will adjust and everything that person needs to survive will go up in cost

due to capitalism taking advantage of the "extra cash" available

sorry i'm talking more in terms of universal income

I'm also for universal basic income

more that artificial wages disrupt the natural cost of workers

so the market should dictate the labour cost

this is a good thing because it helps small businesses grow

if the small business has to pay the same labour overheads as the big business

who do you think can compete better?

that were labour being a massive cost to a particular business

there is also a problem where the person who wants the job is more then happy to accept a certain wage if the business can make another job available due to the lower cost of worker

and that job wont be available due to the minimum wage

I agree about the free market regulating things, for the most part. However, when a particular wage isn't enough for "living", isn't that enough reason to set a boundary?

You said you don't like minimum wage - do you think it should go away completely, then?

$0 minimum wage?

depends on what you define "living" as

Tell me though, I'm curious how extreme you are about this