Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc
Explain this to me then...if he thinks paying his employees more money (for whatever reason) is such a good idea, why doesn't he do it on his own? Why does he need the government to force him to do it?
He does do it on his own, paying his employees -- who he obviously values as more than cold business assets to be squeezed however possible -- very good and fair wages for their work. Result, happy and highly motivated staff > excellent service and productivity > highly satisfied customers > great sales > great profits > everyone benefits. These seem like excellent reasons for paying a good wage and treating one's employees with respect, fairness and decency, concepts that seem lost on far too many of today's managers and business leaders.
As mentioned, I don't think he's supporting a higher minimum wage so much for his own workers, who he already treats very well, but for workers in general. The great success of his company shows that decent pay is not necessarily the ruination of a well-run company nor that highly bloated wages and pay packages are necessary for excellent management and leadership of said company. To repeat casino is no lie stats:
"Today most CEOs take home an average of 380 times more that their employees. In 1973 the average CEO received 20 times their average worker's pay. In 1980, when the middle-class had peaked, the average CEO received 42 times their average worker's pay. Today Costco's CEO only earns about 28 times his average employee."
I think today's CEO/Board of Directors relationships has become far too insular, incestuous and basically corrupt in that they are more interested in protecting their own shared interests (absurdly high pay packages for each other) than the long term health, success and viability of either their own companies, much less the overall American economy, and far much less that of most Americans.
I find it hard to believe that the average CEO is now, somehow, 19Xs more productive/valuable/smart/whatever than one from 1973. That they get paid, relatively speaking, 19X's more is, I think, a clear indication of the corruption, whether legal or simply moral, of the upper echelons of today's business community. Jelinik I think is one of the few who actually is earns and is worth what he is paid, underpaid even but he doesn't seem quite so relentlessly driven by self-enrichment above all else as are so many of his peers.
Personally, I think corporate pay scales should be far more tied to average and overall earnings from top to bottom, with perhaps some set base wage, a base profit incentive added above that, and then all wages set to some X-amount of that, with perhaps the new hire getting 1X that base package and the CEO getting maybe 20-30X, max, of whatever that is, tying everyone's own success and fates together to the overall success of the company.