[bestcoder69]

Yes, that would be a stupid way to raise wages. I guess I assumed I didn't need to explain that I'm not suggesting a contract that literally says to only divvy up the CEO's salary. This is the most pedantic response to anything I think I've ever read.

[nerfhammer]

The point is the amount of compensation you could give to workers from reducing CEO pay is insignificant when you divide it by the number of workers, even if you imagine an unrealistically extreme reduction in CEO pay.

[consp]

While true, it is no reason for not doing so.

On the other hand if you cut the entire c-suite, other board members and top management in half there is a significant amount. Usually with companies this size there are many mini CEOs in divisions and it starts to add up.

[mbrameld]

I think you'll get a better discussion (if that's what you're after) if you tell us exactly what you're suggesting instead of what you're not suggesting. The idea of negotiating better contacts for workers is not a novel one, you're not breaking any ground there. So how, exactly, does that happen?

[bestcoder69]

No ground is being broken in this comment section whatsoever, and I'm not in a position to break any ground either even if I sit for a while and think really hard (...fuck).

But to contribute what I suggest (again, without breaking ground): capitalists take 30% of all income generated, for themselves. I haven't looked up the financials for John Deere, but I mean that's the ratio when you take the U.S. as a whole. That 30% is a wayyyy bigger piece of the pie than divying up a CEO's income, which is probably a tiny part of that (on average) 30%.