Forget the fact that workers are paid based on their productivity, and assume that workers in say Guatemala are paid a “fair” wage say, 5 dollars an hour.
Wouldnt the new influx of money be inflationary and hurt the local economy pushing up prices and making things more expensive than they would be? Would this be a problem?
depends on the worker, the wage , and the company
workers arent paid based on productivity.
workers have been more productive and paid less as a trend and ceos have been less productive and paid more as a trend.
workers receiving more of the productivity would not hurt the local economy.
the ceo getting the big bonus for firing workers and taking the workers pension usaly does not work in the local economy.
the 5 dollor wage can be more or less than what people are currently making, and more or less than productivity.
Link please.
here is one with the graph
it has the growth of ceos as higher than growth in profits and worker pay as lower than growth in profits
http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/03/gotta-love-that-worker-productivity.html
here is the worker productivity graph showing a higher rate of productivity to wages
About wages dropping. This is not a “trend”, but rather an observation of one data point in 2010, a predictable outcome of the laws of supply and demand. When unemployment is about 15% [as measured the way it was in the time of the Great Depression], meaning supply of labor goes up [for whatever reason], wages will go down. Since employees are reluctant to take home less money, they prefer to work longer hours. Indeed, those asked about why they agree to work longer hours for the same take home pay said quite clearly that it was because they knew someone else would gladly take their job at the lower hourly wage if they refused.
To add on to Dave’s demolition of your “more productive and paid less as a trend” nonsense, I have to point out in neither of those links did I find any evidence to suggest CEOs have been “less productive as a trend.” I’m also interested to know how they define “pay” (i.e. what compensation does that include…and what does it leave out.)
the worker part is from 1973, not 2010
whole both ceo and worker pay has risen, ceo pay raised more. by less, i mean rate of growth. so out out a companies increased productivity, wage earners likely have the least power and get the least gain with higher ups taking more of the gain.
here are a few on ceo