Quoted from Astropin:Yep, there will never be equality in money...nor should there be. We reap what we sow. Now that being said, there are areas where things are totally out of wack. On average CEO's make WAY too much vs their own employees. Shit like that needs some tweaking. Not saying I know how to fix it...but it's obvious it's a problem.
I remember reading back in the 90's that the Revenue Per Employee for AT&T (I believe that was after some amount of overhead) was something like $276k, and the average salary was $60k. This was in the early-mid cycle of escalating CEO salaries. I've done consulting gigs where my clients were paying my consulting company 4x what my consulting company was paying me. It perpetually makes me wonder why the person doing 100% of the work is being paid 25% of the revenue. Yes AT&T had a lot more overhead, but that 4x isn't entirely coincidence. 2x rate is also a common overhead taken as a "finder's fee" for service-based consulting as well (very low overhead) so on occasion I could eliminate the middle man and double my salary, doing the same work.
Even after benefits, expenses, re-investing there remains a crap-ton of money sloshing around at company discretion where they could pay employees substantially more, but here's the key: they don't have to. Employees are generally considered a necessary expense, a lion's share of a company's expense, and a company's obligation to investors is to pay the minimum the market will bear, because that improves the bottom line.
CEOs can appear to be brilliant when the reality is they are simply benefiting from cheap money (declining interest rates every year from 1981 to present), and a robust economy also benefiting from lowering interest rates, along with lower relative expenses in suppressed wages, so they "deserve" massive pay increases, right? The BOD and senior executives have the power to distribute money at will, so they do, to themselves. How does one steer a free labor market to swing in favor of those who don't control the purse strings? Nearly impossible outside of the rare situation where a labor group possesses high demand skills in short supply, and eventually that demand gap will get taken care of unless it's a professional skill level that most people won't spent the time on.
Anyway, long way of saying, no actual way to balance out the disparity outside of some form of regulation. See: the early days of the industrial revolution where the legendary exploitation of labor was third only behind feudalism and slavery. I could digress even further but I'll stop because this beyond the TL;DR limit. 
B2EC4137-F127-41CD-B742-6E3E41324447 (resized).png
Kellogg, IA
