I'm sure.... I only mentioned it as a contributing factor.<quoted text>
A bit more to it than that.
Indeed! but it goes the other direction... Most college graduates have a problem finding available work in their chosen area of training, so end up working jobs they are WAY overqualified for. Plus, a glut in graduates in certain fields puts a lowering pressure on wages for that field. You could, of course, institute quotas to prevent this from happening, but that's anti-liberty.We certainly suffer from a mismatch between the education/skills of the workforce and openings.
Of course it is. If CEOs were a dime a dozen, nobody would pay eleven cents a dozen for them. And if the company didn't think the CEO would more than pay for himself in increased profitability, they wouldn't offer those high salaries.This is one reason that I keep harping on education reform.
But, there are other factors as well. The rapid escalation in the pay scale of CEOs is not primarily market-driven.
There has never really been such a protection. Some would say longevity would be such an indicator, but I've had and seen too much to believe that for a second. Nowadays, especially in unions, such employees tend to be less productive compared to their increased compensation. Besides, the desire for increased productivity is to REDUCE costs. That couldn't very well happen if wages were exactly proportional to productivity.Workers have lost a variety of protections, including a lack of union representation, but also protections that used to guarantee that wages would increase proportionally to increases in productivity.
Only the inept ones. If you are good (better, best) at what you do, employers will make more profit off of your labor, and will offer enough compensation to draw these employees away from competitors.Most people don't realize that a purely capitalistic system is prone to the abuse and misuse of labor.
I'm glad to see you admit that the public should pay for a minimum education.The age of the robber barons brought this realization to the American public--previously reluctant to engage in any government interference.
I'm not suggesting NO regulation, but many think we currently have too much.
[QUOTE]Eisenhower realized the importance of unions to support a strong middle class.
When workers at the bottom lose protections (and in fact, real wages have declined), there is more to go to shareholders in profits and high level CEOs in salary.
One hedge has always been progressive tax systems that guarantee certain minimums (public education, public health, public housing, libraries and the like) are available across the board to to all regardless of salary level.