[Aqueous]

I guess I'm not sure that there's a practical difference between "It's marketing" and "This is what the market rate is for a CEO." In other words, firms need to pay this much because that's what other firms are paying (at least.) That's not marketing - that's just the unfettered market at work. Which is why it needs to be fettered. I agree with the salary cap idea, because the market will naturally keep raising the price without bound unless there's something to counteract that, and it is terrible for the labor market as a whole (and even the company as a whole) to be paying so much for a CEO when the same amount could buy dozens or even hundreds of workers.

[srackey]

A salary cap doesn’t change the market rate! It just obfuscates it.

Salaries for public companies locked at 10M/yr? Ok, now firms have to compete on amenities. (Your current firm gives you a free car? Ours gives a jet, a personal Michelin star cook, and complimentary beverages)

[n2d4]

Company benefits are also a form of salary. If your company gifts you a free car, they have to tax it as such.

[krupan]

You'd think so, right? Look up why corporations started providing insurance to their employees. Look into why your compensation is not just a salary, but salary, bonuses, stock (options or RSU's), etc.

[wmf]

AFAIK health insurance is special-cased by law. I had to pay (a trivial amount of) tax on imputed income from IBM's life insurance. The IRS is wise to a lot of perks like company cars.

[n2d4]

As others have mentioned, health insurance is special and may or may not be taxed. Bonuses and stock however are taxable.

[jjav]

> Company benefits are also a form of salary. If your company gifts you a free car, they have to tax it as such.

The company doesn't gift them a car. The company buys a car held in the name of the company and lets the person use it.

[giaour]

If used for personal purposes, that car at your disposal would still be a taxable benefit.

[sudhirj]

It isn't usually classified as a gift, it's company property that you use exclusively. So on the books it's a depreciating asset for the company.

[asadotzler]

Caps work. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in massively expensive fields like sports.

[Domenic_S]

Salary caps are exactly how we got health insurance tied to your employment in the US (during WWII)

[lazide]

Salary caps in sports are literally just to enforce owner cartels and limit the ‘talents’ negotiating power.

[andrewjl]

Sports teams don't typically pay players in equity.

[mfuzzey]

How about no salary cap but a maximum difference factor between the highest paid and the lowest paid in any company?

Not sure what the figure should be (x10?, x20?, x50?, x100?). That way companies that want to pay higher saleries to their CEO would have to increase everyone's salary.

But there would need to be a way of stopping companies just using shells and subcontracting all the real work to low pay subsidiaries.

[larkost]

An escape from something like this is why companies no longer employ their own janitors, but rather contract that out.

The IRS rules went in that said that with the exception of your executives (that is a whole other conversation), everyone has to have the same plan for insurance and pensions. Since they did not want to give out that much money for janitors, they got kicked out of the companies.

[krupan]

You're right, companies would stop hiring employees and just work with contractors.

These kinds of regulations never work like you want them to. Just let the market do it's thing.

[asadotzler]

then make the same ratio apply to contractors. you're working awful hard here to defend corporations. why?