Full disclosure: I'm not an economics guy, but here goes:
Robert Reich, in his book The Common Good, delves into "Shareholder" capitalism and "Stockholder" capitalism. The former, he claims, exists when all three points of the capitalism triangle—consumer, worker, and owner—exist in a state that works equally for all. For example, workers get paid well, owners make a reasonable amount of money, and consumers are offered solid products at fair prices.
The latter, however, maximizes profit and pay for the owner/stockholders while adversely affecting product quality and price, worker pay, or both.
My basic question is this: why is it that worker pay and benefit questions always result in "costs of products will skyrocket" rather than "CEOs/stockholders/etc." might not make 320x what their employees make?
This is a serious question as, long before my father passed away, he watched this trend in his company and it always hurt him. In the 60's when he started, his bosses made five times what he made while in the '00s when he retired, they were making thirty times.
I looked this up not long ago, and though his numbers were probably off (low!), he wasn't wrong at all:
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-...ypical-worker/
Thoughts? Why isn't this talked about more?
Sent from my SM-G950U using
Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app