Virtual Voices

Spread the wealth around-voluntarily

Economy

During the 2008 presidential campaign when candidate Barack Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that he wanted to "spread the wealth around," it sounded to a lot of conservatives like socialism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," in the words of Karl Marx.

There is a kind of wealth spreading, however, that ought to meet the political litmus test of conservative Republicans, liberal Democrats, and radical Independents. We continue to suffer high unemployment, too many layoffs, and too few new jobs in the private sector: 230,000 jobs were created last month, according to the Labor Department, but unemployment continues to officially hover at just under 9 percent and Gallup calculates it, without seasonal adjustment, at 10 percent. In light of that, it is disheartening to see so many CEOs having recovered enough from their personal recession to pay themselves salaries and benefits that would have shamed the super-rich in America's Gilded Age.

USA Today reported last week in a story on CEO compensation that "three-quarters of CEOs got raises---and, in many cases, the increases were substantial." Employee pay, on the other hand, effectively stalled. Median CEO pay, reported the newspaper, increased 27 percent last year, meaning the average CEO received $9 million in 2010. Even in a struggling economy, I wager most people could get by on $9 million a year.

We see you’ve been enjoying the content on our exclusive member website. Ready to get unlimited access to all of WORLD’s member content?
Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.
(Don’t worry. It only takes a sec—and you don’t have to give us payment information right now.)

Get your risk-free, 30-Day FREE Trial Membership right now.

Unlike my liberal friends, I don't obsess about how much money other people make. Whatever compensation someone can negotiate is fine with me.

Whether a person is "worth" their pay is a subjective matter and open to debate.

The moral issue in executive pay is whether management deserves these high salaries while employees are laid off, or denied pay increases.

Last April the Baltimore Sun reported that Stanley-Black and Decker in Towson, Md., announced plans to lay off 4,000 of its 38,000 employees. Yet, according to USA Today, Stanley-Black & Decker CEO John Lundgren made more than $32 million in 2010, up 253.1 percent from the previous year.

U.S. Bancorp Chairman Richard Davis was paid $16.1 million in 2010, a 143.0 percent compensation boost. In January, U.S. Bancorp announced that 64 workers in its Milwaukee office would be cut.

One doesn't have to be a liberal who believes in income redistribution to see the unfairness in disproportionate pay. Think of the kudos and favorable press coverage that would come to a corporate chief who shared his wealth, rather than lay off employees. It could change not only the media coverage of big business, but also the way the public perceives the super rich.

Stockholders ought to demand that no competent worker should be laid off if a CEO earns above a certain amount of money. Stockholders also have a moral responsibility beyond the dividends they receive.

Making money is a noble American objective, but making a living is a nobler one. Corporations ought to have enough decency and compassion to make sure no worker is let go solely to increase the bottom line or pad the boss's pockets with more money than he (or she) can ever hope to spend in a lifetime.

© 2011 Tribune Media Services Inc.

Cal Thomas
Cal Thomas

Cal, whose syndicated column appears on WORLD's website and in more than 500 newspapers, is a frequent contributor to WORLD's radio news magazine The World and Everything in It. Follow Cal on Twitter @CalThomas.

Comments

You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading