If the lowest paid full time employee in a publicly traded corporation makes $20,000 a year then the CEO pay would be limited to $1,00,000 per year. If the lowest paid staffer is raised to $30,000 then the CEO can be rewarded with a $1,500,000 base compensation.
This would be a great incentive to raise the pay of those who need it the most. And the CEO must be the highest paid employee in the corporation—limiting other executive's pay, too.
The limit would not affect stock option compensation as long as they are out of the money call options. So, the stock price must appreciate to be “in the money” or worth anything. Workers benefit, stockholders benefit, and if the CEO performs, he or she can benefit, too.
CEO pay, now, is obscenely high, and that causes complacency and does not make for a greater company, jobs, or United States.
This would only affect publicly traded companies, as not to over regulate small businesses who primarily need customers to create local entry level jobs. And it is hard enough, today, for small businesses to even stay in business.
If the CEO is unhappy with this arrangement, they can leave and innovate their way to a better pay package. This would make room for someone hungrier to do a better job for consumers, workers, managers, and stockholders (in-other-words us).
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.
Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).