I think 5 is maybe an over-ambitious goal.
I don’t really mind a 50:1 cap, or even a 100:1 cap. I can understand how experienced leadership of a large scale multinational corporation should be compensated more than 5x the amount of a 16 year old part time cashier in a town of 2200 people.
Even think about it from an age demographic/experience point of view. How much more should someone make doing the same job for 40 years than the new hire with no experience? In a lot of fields, I don’t feel like it would be unfair for that scale to go 4:1. Now factor that into the consideration of the varying different positions, the ratio has got to be higher.
And in the face of abhorrent 2100:1 ratios, I think a 100:1 ratio is low enough to make a meaningful difference and high enough that no one can sensibly argue against it.
I think 5 is maybe an over-ambitious goal.
Maybe, but I’m OK with being ambitious.
I can understand how experienced leadership of a large scale multinational corporation should be compensated more than 5x the amount of a 16 year old part time cashier in a town of 2200 people.
I can’t. Large scale multination corporations shouldn’t exist. But that’s a separate issue ultimately.
How much more should someone make doing the same job for 40 years than the new hire with no experience? In a lot of fields, I don’t feel like it would be unfair for that scale to go 4:1.
A company hiring somebody with 40 years of experience should be paying towards the higher end of the 1:5 ratio. It would ensure far more of the wealth goes to those who actually provide value.