I really have a hard time believing that workers would buck any kind of state diktat regarding pay scales. Canadians and Americans are already enjoying all-time low personal savings rates and dependent on credit for everything from housing to buying cars and nick-nacks.
I think it's fair to say that those who would see their pay rise would be in favor of controls and those who would see a decline would be against. I have no information or statistics to back this up but the conversations I have with colleagues and others I know suggest it - and I don't believe that's only because I live in Alberta.
As for vital services, physicians are one example of where people go into a field of study for reasons other than money. We would not see a shortage of doctors and scientists if wages were lower for those positions than they are in countries like the U.S. Cuba is a good example of this.
I agree, in many instances people enter these fields for reasons other than money. I disagree, however, if you're suggesting those people don't feel they are deserving of greater pay for their years ( and money ) invested in learning to be a doctor or scientist, than those who are unwilling or unable to muster the skill or commitment to finish high-school.
I think it's worth noting that Cubans are not free to decide and many, many Canadians have left Canada for more lucrative pay in their fields in the United States and elsewhere.
The Gorbachev Foundation has some things to say about remuneration for captains of industry.
I'll have to look that up, I'm not familiar with their work on the topic..thanks.
The idea is to reduce inequality and live within our means.
This is another case where my experience, however anecdotal, suggests we'd have a problem finding anything near a concensus. I am a professed "self-limiter" and I take a good deal of flack for it. What is wanted and what is needed has a different definition in almost every kitchen.
If we create new laws and embark on emergency rationing of finite resources, then the law has to apply to everyone, or the law will have no teeth. I would be more concerned with corporate level consumption of raw materials and fossil fuels for things people really dont need today. And there are many examples of this in our false economy today.
Again, wants and needs are extremely subjective. I do thank you though for the thoughtful responses. I'm not trying to shoot down your responses. I just keep running into the same issues ( I've given a lot of time to thinking along the same lines you've proposed here and I keep running into the fairness issue ).
I guess it's my turn fire up some clay ducks and let you guys take shots.
Can we look at working within the currently flawed system to develop laws ( specifically on taxation ) which reward those things people seem to desire rather than punishing those we generally seem to abhore (sp? )?
Specifically, we need to support entreprenurialism ( we need a spell check on this site ) throughout the entire value chain of production while discouraging what some would call the looting of revenues by technocrats and managers. These are not fully formed ideas, your shots will help me refine my thinking
The Plus-15 Corporation ( so named because I thought of it while walking in Calgary's excellent +15 system of downtown core building connections )
Canadian Corporations who meet the standards of a +15 Corporation pay no corporate tax. Further, employees of +15 Corporations pay a preferred rate of income tax on salaries payed by the +15 Corp and no tax on profit-share revenues.
Requirements to be considered a +15 Corporation*
- Any profits ( earnings before interest, taxes, and ammortization ) exceeding 15% are paid to employees as part of a profit-share which must be evenly distributed to each working member of the corporation ( not those who are only shareholders ).
- Salary compensation of any member of a +15 cannot be more than X times that of any other member of the corp.
.....it would be great if this number worked out to be 15 but something in the area of 6 or 7 might be more reasonable. I realize that still sounds large to anti-capitalists but we can't escape the fact that these companies would have to compete for qualified people against other companies which would not have such controls( I also personally believe that people with talents in greater demand should be paid more than those without those talents ).
- Non-salary compenstation, as a % of salary, of any member of the corp cannot be more than 15% above the mean non-salary compensation.
*A formula, preferably a simple one, to determine the % of inputs from non-plus15 companies would be needed to determine the 'status' as a +15. This is to prevent a cadre of managers paying themselves wildly and avoiding taxation within the rules while simply outsourcing everything that is dilutive to their compensation.
I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.