While I do believe it is very important to have safety nets in place for people at the lower end of the income spectrum and possibly to even have some sort of guaranteed minimum income for everybody, I do not believe it is healthy for there to be caps or limits on what people are able to make on the upper end. I have two reasons for thinking this. It is popular to criticize executive pay or what star athletes make. But the implicit assumption often made is that if people like that make so much money, it must be coming out of the pockets of someone else (i.e., hurting people at the lower end of the pay scale).  This is a fixed pie assumption.  I do believe that it is possible that some people  are able to enlarge the pie (e.g., increase firm value or increase the overall revenue to their organization or start a business) such that others also benefit (e.g., investors including regular workers who have savings in 401ks, which they hope are invested in well-performing stocks, or people down on their luck or retired who receive assistance paid for by the taxes of people making a lot of money). But these benefits are often less visible to people than the large salary that the executive or athlete receives and so it is easy to criticize it out of context. Many people are not financially or economically trained enough to do this, but I suspect if people were and were able to look at the overall economic picture of who wins when a company is headed by a good CEO, for example, they might not be so critical.  While there are definitely cases of executives who are overpaid, in general in life, you get what you pay for.  I for one would never own stock in a company that capped the pay of its executives, as I think that severely limits the pool of talent to lead the company and limits the ability to reward an executive for doing a good job.  A second argument is the populist sentiment is that no one "deserves" to make that much money, but this creates a "slippery slope" problem.  If we assert that a CEO paid $1million is overpaid, then what should a doctor make? What should an entrepreneur who starts a business make? What should a professor make? Are we really prepared as a society to limit the economic earning potential of our citizens? I don't think this is the case in the U.S., as much as people seem to like to complain about what others make. if they were in the position themselves, faced with the same risks, having made personal investments in education, etc., and then presented with an opportunity to make the going rate of pay for a position (even if it is a high $ amount), I know very few people who would turn it down and say "No thank you, that is too much money. I don't deserve it." But somehow we think others ought to do just that, and if they don't (e.g., an executive or athlete) it is "unconscionable" and they're just "greedy". A final point here is that all this attention to people who make a lot of money is a big and easy and entertaining distraction from the real problems we face as a country--that the average worker's pay has not increased even though productivity has increased. This is not due to CEOs making more money, but of weakened worker power (fewer unions) and of organizations having other options for labor (e.g., robots and foreign workers). But these are more messy intractable problems to deal with. While it is easier to pick on one highly visible target (CEO's for example), in my opinion,  that is not the critical wage problem in need of fixing.

Comment