I like to point out that the CEO will be fired or paid more as he will now have to get make more skilled and valuable workers. So if a CEO is paid 1 million a year to oversee 100 workers at $10-$15 an hour, and now he needs to make the same or more profits with less workers because he is going to be valued more or replaced if he can't produce. So now this company needs to pay its CEO more and get more out of less people. Making this argument, makes the people who think CEOs should not get more money really think.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That's a great point. If a CEO can maintain profits while paying a "living wage, that CEO would be extremely valuable to the company. I think the sad truth is the only response most of them will likely come up with will be to raise prices, passing the expense onto the consumer.