An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
The Economic Case For Fairer Income Distribution (In Rhyme)
Some think this country’s income pie
Is too top-tier allotted,
And should be changed in ways that make
The rich less so besotted;
They see a moral issue here,
The way income’s divided,
Because it leaves so many poor,
So scared and ill-provided.
I have a different focus though,
Not based on moral feeling,
But rather geared to something else,
An economic healing;
Unless a broader income spread
Lets more folks boost their spending,
There’s little hope that we’ll soon see
This long recession’s ending.
6 Responses to “The Economic Case For Fairer Income Distribution (In Rhyme)”
Well said Michael… I especially liked your ending:
Unfortunately half those here won’t read or understand your words. They live in a tone (and rhyme) deaf monotonous world.
They’re unable to do anything other than repeatedly drone on-and-on the tripe that’s fed them by “Money & Power, Inc.”
I like it, Mr. Silverstein. I like it a lot. Short, succint and conveys a powerful message.
It sounds great. So how do we flatten the income distribution?
In practice, flattening (the results) resembles what a lawn mower does.
Well, the following may not ‘flatten’ the income disparity, but it would help:
Way to fix the obscene compensation in corporations
First off, we are talking only about corporations that are publicly owned and operate in more than one state (or operate internationally). Such corporations are supposed to be regulated by the federal government due to interstate commerce clause in the constitution. The reason it should only apply to publicly owned corporations is that if someone privately owns a corporation, he is entitled to its profits as a matter of fairness.
1. No one is allowed to have a salary (including bonuses—see exceptions below) more than 10 times (or 20) that of the lowest paid person working for the corporation. This includes those who are ‘contracted’ to do work for the company and spend the majority of their time (or the most time of any place they work in similar contract) for that company (think contracted cleaning crew, etc)
2. Exceptions to the above include those who cause the corporation to immediately realize the fruits of the their labor. Examples would include artists (singers, etc), professional athletes and sales people who sell items that allow the corporation to get the money immediately (not some promise of money in the future). Since these people cause the corporation to get the money immediately, they should be allowed to get their commision (or whatever) immediately.
3. Employees may be given stock options that are set at the price when the options are issued or the price of the stock when the employee got his job—whichever is HIGHER! For those who don’t know how stock options work: you get the right to purchase stock at a guaranteed price, regardless of what the price at the market is. This would allow top management to earn those bloated salaries—but only if they get the corporation’s stock to rise in price!
4. The stock options offered above can not be used until three years after they have been awarded. This will make it that management will not make short-sighted, potentially dangerous or risky decisions since much of their compensation will depend on the long-term viability of the corporation.
I like the direction you’re going in, RC. Historically legal salary caps have tended to backfire, as companies find some other way to compensate employees. Salary caps after world war two ended up screwing up our health care market, and we’re still struggling to fix it. But I wonder if some changes to corporate governance laws might empower shareholders to achieve the effect you’re after.