[Helmet]

In my view wages of the middle class should grow at the same rate the top incomes grow.

What does this mean? What do you mean should and who is in the "top"? By should, you mean we should peg "middle-class" wages to some index that will track the growth of "the top" - thereby forcing privately owned business owners to pay what the government tells them to? And what if they can't, they just have to close up shop? Can they fire workers?

I think you need to consider more deeply the implications of you ideas, and concepts such as what people, governments, or institutions "should" be forced to do.

Also, the "top" earners in the USA don't generate labor income, they accumulate capital. If you want to piggyback off their efforts to steer capital in a more productive manner, thereby growing it, you can open up a online brokerage account and buy some shares of any publicly traded company you want.

[gremlinsinc]

Personally, I think a max CEO pay of 200X average company salary would be a better metric... if Execs/Board members can only get so much reward and it's directly influenced by # of employees and average employee wage, -- want a pay increase... raise some wages or hire more employees.

Not sure the algorithm would be... but it needs to be tied directly to # employed and average salary to encourage growth, and discourage greed at the top.

Some CEO's do almost fraudulent things -- but get a golden parachute when they leave, this behavior needs to stop too. If a CEO fucks up - fire them, without any severance.

[maxxxxx]

You know exactly what I mean. You just want to take my point to a ridiculous level to kill the argument.

Over the last 30 years the average salary of top management has grown a lot while the salaries of most other works have stagnated. If a company is successful the salaries of all employees should grow at the same rate. The CEO is already making more money so he is already rewarded more for his role.