Ultra-Hyper-Mega-Snip 2: Electric Boogaloo
I have read some bullshit in my time, but at least this was well-written bullshit, therefore entertaining to read at the very least. I didn't think I would come back to this topic, but I guess I just couldn't resist my own masochistic tendencies (which, incidentally, I imagine will one day be the death of me).
Where to begin?
The base of what you're saying is correct on a hypothetical level, but the rest is just stupid, regurgitated talking points drilled into your head by other people. I mean, don't get me wrong, you start off strong, but you strawman people's basic issue with income inequality. The problem is not "person x has more skills than I do." Skilled labor only makes a handful of times more than the unskilled. Here, I still see the insistence that people are demanding a 1:1 worker to executive pay ratio. Not the least bit true. What's actually being demanded is for workers to be paid fairly for their time without having to also apply for government assistance or to take a second or third job just to make ends meet. If you ask the richest people in Australia if they feel they're suffering in their riches because they actually have to pay their employees a living wage, they'd probably laugh at you.
Japan would probably tell you the same thing.
The key problem with income/wealth inequality is that the 65 richest people have more wealth AND income than the rest of the entire planet. Those same people (at least the ones living here) have the ability to assert their dominance in the political spectrum by controlling the conversation and acquiring fealty from our so-called leaders after the elections. Seems a little off balance, don't you think? I don't mind rich people, so long as they're not lobbying my government to gain special rights and privileges or polluting the only planet we have to the point where it can no longer sustain human life (while denying outright that it's even happening). It's just a shame that A&E cancelled "Hoarders," because I can think of 65 people on this planet that could each use an episode.
If you'll allow me to use an anecdotal example to put things into perspective, a good friend of mine used to work at Stanley Steemer. The CEO cut his employees' salaries in half because sales sucked and he needed to make a 3 million dollar super bowl ad. My buddy stopped being able to both pay rent and fill his car with gas in order to get to work, but the CEO's big problem was that he had to sell ONE OF HIS ISLANDS. THAT is income inequality in a nutshell.
Obviously you're right about small businesses. A mom and pop pizza place isn't going to be able to abide by a specific ratio of owner:worker salary, but like every other law lately, they can be left out. You can make the entire thing based on market capital and yearly net sales figures. Just let me state for the record that not only does all the justified bitching toward corporate entities not apply to small business owners such as yourself or your family (since, to my knowledge, you are not wealth hoarders with a massive lobbying arm, nor are you committing unspeakable crimes against nature and humanity), but also know that the tax code is, in fact, rigged against you and favoring large companies. I would also have to guess that your business is not a big player in the six major industries that control policy in this country (banking, telecom, energy, agriculture, defense, and pharmaceuticals). As far as I know, your business has done nothing wrong. Your indignity is somewhat understandable, but ultimately aimed at nothing.
On that note, I had to laugh at your assertion that
only a government employee could be shielded from accountability for their fuck-ups. It would be even more funny, except for the fact that no other entity on the planet is shielded from accountability more than the typical American/multinational CEO. I could point you to BP, which got a slap on the wrist for their criminal negligence, then exploited government ties to the manufacturers of Corexit to cover up the sheen without actually cleaning it up, and running a media blackout on cleanup workers who were denied protection from the toxic sludge they were exposed to. I could also point you to HSBC (although it's based in the UK, its largest branch is in the US) which funneled billions of dollars to drug cartels and terrorists, later to be fined pocket change. Need I also point out the cartel of banks that crashed the global economy and the housing market by gambling with other people's money, only to be bailed out by the taxpayers with no strings attached and no new rules to prevent them from doing it all over again? I could also point you to Bayer who knowingly sold HIV tainted drugs to Europe, Asia, and Latin America. Other notable examples include Chevron, DeBeers, Haliburton, Pfizer, Monsanto -- or I could just end the list here and say you get the picture. Point is, in a country without a double-standard on justice these companies probably wouldn't even exist anymore by now. In the real world, though, they're still profitable enough that if the head honchos of each one were to cut their total wealth in half they would each still have more money than they could ever hope to know what to do with in their lifetimes.
I would like you to show me specific instances where attempts to cap CEO pay in this country have been tried and failed (and please post the actual sources where you're getting your information, don't just link a "lmgtfy," that's just lazy and dickish). Show them to me, and I can tell you exactly why such measures will fail each and every single time.
Our government is bought. Wealth is privatized and risk is socialized. Embezzlement, fraud, theft, extortion, corruption and price fixing are realms where this government
rarely, if ever, addresses to an appropriate degree. We don't have a free market, we have corporatism. In a world where money is speech and bribes can be called "campaign contributions" we are not represented in the slightest. You think Social Democracy is where this happens? I won't pretend that it's not possible, but in a corporatist oligarchy like this where government basically answers to big business well over half the time, any executive with the means who wants to stay competitive would be stupid NOT to buy a politician.
Regarding the numbers,
take a good look at this page. Click on any highlighted country, and compare it to the US. This source is mostly meant for the benefit of Kingpoleon to sift through, but you're privy to it if you'd like. Of course, I've seen sources with numbers all over the place. Some say it's over 300:1, some say it's above around 200:1, depends on the methodology. Why, then, does every other country's ratio fall so far below ours? Is every other country underpaying its CEO's, or are ours the most greedy and childish people on the planet? Talk about income inequality, right? In all honesty, though, as I've said before,
it's a scam. Even for the CEO's who mean well and are legitimately working their assess off, it's hard to say "no" to that kind of money.
Now, take a look at this and then as a backup, take a look at
the Great Gatsby Curve.
Now, this is not to suggest that lower CEO-pay by country is the sole cause to higher socioeconomic mobility through the same metric (as some with far closer ratios have even less mobility that us), but the two appear to be inexorably related to one another. Additionally, I think you'll find that many of the nations with a closer ratio (in the "ratio by country" link I posted) do have much better upward mobility. For reference, the UK is one country who pays to educate those laid off by technological innovations to work those new jobs. Here, the companies force early retirement and then, in Detroit's case, take away everyone's pensions.
As for your claim that traditional poverty has been outright eradicated? Um... no it hasn't. Sorry, but I don't think you and I are looking at the same country here. Just because the "mainstream" view of poverty isn't poor in a Dickensian sensibility, it is foolish to trivialize their suffering. It's even more important to consider just how easily they could lose what little they have. One leukemia diagnosis or broken bone would be an economic death sentence. If you still think the poor have it pretty good, try taking that opinion to rural Arkansas or Mississippi where people don't have running water, heat, or four steady walls around them. Tell that to the homeless population who works full time (which is why the "free cell phones" thing exists (started by Ronald Reagan, and translated to cell phones under Bush because it makes more sense, is cheaper, and more efficient to give someone a cell phone than a home landline), so they have a method of contact for an interview. They don't get fucking iPhones).
We all live in our bubbles. It's hard to really get a grasp of what poverty is in this country without seeing it firsthand. Actual poverty is being too poor to even make it to soup kitchens. Actual poverty means living in places that make trailer homes look like the Ritz Carlton. The face of "mainstream" poverty in this country may be obesity, but that's because junk food is subsidized and dirt cheap while whole, organic food is heavily taxed. These people may not be hungry, but they're anything but healthy.
Also, take into account geographical and social lockdowns on mobility. If you're born in an inner city neighborhood to a poor family and the only thing you ever know is drugs, guns, and gangs, the odds of you making it out of that life are so infinitely small in this country that you're pretty much fucked no matter how hard you try. What business do you know that's going to open up in such squalid, crime-ridden hellholes to create new opportunities for these people?
The main problem I have with your position is that you don't seem to have any misgivings with the way things are, and blithely defend it as being "just the way things are." You don't seem to have any problem with allowing "rational self interest" to guide humanity's future, when time and time again it has showed us what it leads to: Industry consolidation, cronyism, exploitation, environmental destruction, human rights violations, restriction of choice, and general squalor. "Oh, but can't a government also cause these things?" Sure, and it often has throughout history. Just look at all of the countries we invaded, overthrew, or messed around in since the end of World War II in order to stop the real or imagined threat of spreading communism. The difference is that a government can be voted out. A government can be held accountable by its citizens (provided the country isn't full of vapid, demoralized, apathetic shlubs). Politicians can be impeached (however impossible that may be today in the US). Corporate BOD's aren't elected by the general public, and their only interest is profit, all other things be damned. What is profitable is too often not in our best interest.
How to fix things? If I knew the answer I would be working to implement them, not arguing on a forum. Just look at countries like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Denmark, Finland, and Australia. Surely they must be doing something right (use those countries as a metric for deciding an equitable pay ratio). I would expatriate today to live in any of those countries if I had the means, but those means are just too far out of my grasp at the moment, and it would be a logistical nightmare to boot. If that "rational self interest" you champion means that 40 different countries have to be destabilized and fucked over for our benefit, that's a self-interest that needs to be eschewed from the public consciousness.
Addendum: Your ideas regarding the functionality of a nationalized healthcare system are poorly researched and just plain incorrect. Look at the World Health Organization's ranking of healthcare quality by nation and see if you can still make those claims. The UK, with all of its faults, not only has a better baseline healthcare system that the US, but also much cheaper. Everything except prescriptions are free and a one-month supply of medication is, like, 3 pounds. In the US, medication for crohn's disease without insurance costs $9,000 for a 2 month supply. We have an unwillingness in this country to negotiate the price of drugs, supplies, and services. Everything is massively overpriced to the point where not having insurance means bankruptcy or death, and we largely have lobbying and corruption at local, state and federal levels to thank for that.
Speaking of drug prices, did you know that here in Arizona the only scorpion whose venom is potent enough to potentially kill another human being is the Bark Scorpion? Because of this, instances of envenomation are so rare that the company that sells the antivenom charges somewhere in the neighborhood of $13,000 per injection. Get that? We don't save people's lives in this country unless someone can turn a profit. People whose lives are on the line are considered a
market. Say what you will about how the system works, that's fucking sick on a fundamental level.