I fully agree with what you say as the Swiss history have a big dependency with the French Revolution. This revolutionary movement have been the ignition of the last Swiss civil war a half century after the trouble in France. Fortunately, revolutionary movement lost the this civil war with very low fatalities, tanks to a cleaver general from the federal army. This permit a quick reconciliation and there started together to write a new constitution that mixed ideas from the USA constitution, the proved good proportional representation already used in some cantons, and ideas from the French revolution. Pragmatically, I think that the result seem to be worth trying.
The today French and USA democracies are incomplete from my point of view, by giving to much power to the government of a single party after it have been elected. In both countries this inevitably end up with 2 leading big parties that tend to share each almost half of the suffrage, resulting in about half of the citizen frustrated by the elected government, regardless of the choice. I think that a federal council with a proportional representation is a interesting method to improve the situation and lowering the number of frustrated citizens.
As a Swiss citizen, I would suggest to first try add to the existing system a federal council with proportional representation, the popular referendum and the popular initiative.
Yes, it part of the process to find a good and effective regulation. Today we rejected the 1:12 initiative, but we accepted the initiative against the rip off salaries the last 3 mars of this year. There will certainly be others proposals in the future. This is what make Swiss political system interesting: there is a continuous flow a vote, from either the government or from the peoples.
The law proposal that would increase the shareholders say in what they pay to the chief executive have been voted with the referendum against rip off salaries the 3 March 2013 and has been accepted with 68% of yes.
The 1:12 law proposal voted today is rejected, but this is an other vote.
Actually the first results of the vote show that the initiative is rejected. Strange, study before the vote tend to show that low salary have rejected it more than high salary ! I suspect that too many people are afraid of possible jobs loss and accept a society that work more live a slave nation as your describes.
I don't think that the cap/capless country is a so big problem. There is already a very deep and large differences between many countries on a large range of subject. A rule that only affect a small number of abuses is not enough to change everything.
I don't understand you concept of risk. CEO of the company you named have absolutely no risk at all as long as there act legally: there will never lost money, there can just earn less money if there fail. There is a lot of competent people that would be more than happy to replace some outrageously cupid CEO. The McDonald's example is AFAIK a bad example at least in Switzerland as each restaurant location is a independent company, so there is no risk for the main company.
Whenever the word used (extreme or abuse) any system require regulation to bond it to some decent limits.
Yes. And if there bent and broke the rules, be assured that there bent and broke everything possible rules in the system. I don't think that this kind of person is profitable for the country in the long term. There just want to exploit the place to the maximum for there own profit and then ask help from the government...
Small business will definitely not be affected by this initiative in Switzerland. Even the government statistic agree on that (and remember that the Swiss government is again this popular initiative). Only a few big companies, and ironically a couple of government owned companies, will be affected.
Business owner that take risk will privately own a lot of share of his company and can get a lot of revenue if he sell them. Because there are PRIVATE share, there are not payed by the company and thus is not part of the 12:1 limitation. So the reward of the risk is not the problem here. Now if you have a successful business and that you needs others competences to make profit, then it's normal to share the profit there help to so. If you think that there are not necessary, then why asking for there time ?
USD 20k per year for a full time work is not enough to live in Switzerland if you are alone. At this stage you will pay no tax at all and get subvention to pay the required medical insurance. You will not find this kind of job from the unemployment office because it will be declared unsuitable. Basically this kind of jobs is part of the black market, mostly driven by strangers that hope to find a better way of life in Switzerland. There can survive some times with that in poor condition and by avoiding controls only if there are not declared. It's highly illegal, and I don't see how a big company can legally exploit this black market. Now there is a very high turnaround in this black market, because Switzerland is actually highly attractive, but there soon discover that it's extremely difficult to live completely hidden there in the long term.
From the Swiss federal statistic of 2011 ( http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/20/03/blank/key/02/06.html ): * 10% of the population get less than about USD 29k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction. * 10% of the population get more than about USD 97k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction. * The median is about USD 53k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction. So the 12:1 ratio is already a very very comfortable one for the top exec with about USD 348k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction if it pay some employee to the lowest possible rate, given that it will be directly in the few percent of the highest of all revenues of country ! You can have more than the double by paying your employee in a fair way. If you expect even more money, then you probably have a pathology related to it.
Top moneymakers can't own the majority of a country's citizens. The 12:1 is actually a popular initiative against the wish of the Swiss government. Swiss citizen known that the government and some media tend to be controlled by lobbies, it's part of the process. This is why the popular referendum and the popular initiative are so important: to let the people own the government, and not the contrary.
Leaving companies is a risk. If there leave only because of that, I don't see what advantage there have to be in Switzerland in the first place, because this is an expensive location. There is already a lot of others locations with lower cost of operation.
The 1:12 ratio is far enough to find a lot of competent executives on this planet without rely on the few ones viscerally too cupid.
Switzerland will maybe try (we will see next day) to start this limitation alone without international coordination. Why asking the others countries to start the limitation too ? The USA's "free market" way of doing business is to ask the others to not be able to compete ? What are you afraid of ? Maybe extreme capitalism don't mix well with long term stability...
The initiative only count the gain from a company to one of his employee. So a mandate or outsourcing is not bound by it. In your example, the star will probably be mandated in person.
The goal is precisely to force the split of operations that have very different values. If a star team need some low task, there can still mandate or outsource it. But if the company is basically a big money pump that exploit lower workers to enrich a few top exec, then the company will have to make a better sharing of the profit. If it choose to split the company in two parts, the "lower" part will be even more profitable and the "higher" part will lost his main revenue. This way the power is inverted. The "lower" company can make a better sharing, and can use services from an other, more concurrent company to do the few tasks remaining in the "higher" company.
According to the Swiss federal statistics the initiative will affect only a few companies. A private company is not a excuse to exploit others. If you privately are the value, you don't need the help of the others for your success. If you need the help of the others to success, it's normal to share the common success. Again, this depend where is the value.
So, why not promoting a direct democracy, with proportional representation, popular referendum and popular initiative in your USA ? Work well here in Switzerland with 26 states and 4 languages, so why not with about the double of states and far less languages ?
Historically, the Swiss constitution of 1848 have been inspired a lot by the USA constitution. Back to this time the Switzerland just ended a civil war and there politicians have feel that electing a government like the USA do would inevitably create a lot of frustration in the population. Some states haved already a good experience with the proportional representation so there basically mixed it with the democracy idea from the USA.
Take in account that in most lucrative business, the work of the lower paid workers produce the biggest profit. So if the company is split into two part, the "lower" part will be even more profitable (not having to pay the high part) and the "high" part will be less profitable (big profit gone, high cost).
Pragmatically the initiative will only affect a few big companies. Small business will be unaffected because this is no such big ratio on it.
If someone pours sweat and tears ALONE into HIS OWN company and then become successful, then is can take as many money as it wants because there is no other salary in the company, then no ration apply at all. If you need help from others, then it's normal to make them part of the COMMON success.
Actually the initiative to be voted don't make the difference between salary, bonus, extra, dividend or capital gain as long as there come from the same company.
It depend of your definition of "talent." There is a increasingly number of executive that have the only talent is raising there salary and extras to the maximum imaginable. The recent history have show that a chunk of them are really incompetents. Just take a look into a list of defunct companies....
No problem ! in Switzerland you are welcome to present your idea in a popular initiative. If you can have 100'000 supporters of your idea (you just have to collect signatures), all the country will vote it. Great no ? Actually, the 12:1 initiative is the product of this exact process. So let the Swiss vote on it. There will certainly be other vote on that matter in the future.
In France for example, there have now a 75% tax on high revenues. We will see how this will work on the long term...
We will see in the long term. It's not impossible that the Swiss citizen will try, because making something is better than nothing. A the minimum you have learned something to maybe make a better future proposal.
Men are in general stronger physically than women...
It depend of the metric you use. You can be right if you focus on the muscular mass, but you will be surprised if you test the precision and the resistance in the long term.
This is possible, but now just think: witch resulting company will be the most profitable in the long term ? The one that do the real work and pay low, or the one that do only PR work and pay high ? At some point the first company will use an other PR company...
Slashdot Mirror
He could just have buy the truck without any knowledge of the secret compartment existence.
Frustrated ?
Disclaimer: i'm Swiss
I fully agree with what you say as the Swiss history have a big dependency with the French Revolution. This revolutionary movement have been the ignition of the last Swiss civil war a half century after the trouble in France. Fortunately, revolutionary movement lost the this civil war with very low fatalities, tanks to a cleaver general from the federal army. This permit a quick reconciliation and there started together to write a new constitution that mixed ideas from the USA constitution, the proved good proportional representation already used in some cantons, and ideas from the French revolution. Pragmatically, I think that the result seem to be worth trying.
The today French and USA democracies are incomplete from my point of view, by giving to much power to the government of a single party after it have been elected. In both countries this inevitably end up with 2 leading big parties that tend to share each almost half of the suffrage, resulting in about half of the citizen frustrated by the elected government, regardless of the choice. I think that a federal council with a proportional representation is a interesting method to improve the situation and lowering the number of frustrated citizens.
As a Swiss citizen, I would suggest to first try add to the existing system a federal council with proportional representation, the popular referendum and the popular initiative.
Yes, it part of the process to find a good and effective regulation. Today we rejected the 1:12 initiative, but we accepted the initiative against the rip off salaries the last 3 mars of this year. There will certainly be others proposals in the future. This is what make Swiss political system interesting: there is a continuous flow a vote, from either the government or from the peoples.
Apple use subcontractors. The most profitable part is when Apple sell there products, not when the subcontractors build them.
It's not the same vote !
The law proposal that would increase the shareholders say in what they pay to the chief executive have been voted with the referendum against rip off salaries the 3 March 2013 and has been accepted with 68% of yes.
The 1:12 law proposal voted today is rejected, but this is an other vote.
Actually the first results of the vote show that the initiative is rejected. Strange, study before the vote tend to show that low salary have rejected it more than high salary ! I suspect that too many people are afraid of possible jobs loss and accept a society that work more live a slave nation as your describes.
I don't think that the cap/capless country is a so big problem. There is already a very deep and large differences between many countries on a large range of subject. A rule that only affect a small number of abuses is not enough to change everything.
I don't understand you concept of risk. CEO of the company you named have absolutely no risk at all as long as there act legally: there will never lost money, there can just earn less money if there fail. There is a lot of competent people that would be more than happy to replace some outrageously cupid CEO. The McDonald's example is AFAIK a bad example at least in Switzerland as each restaurant location is a independent company, so there is no risk for the main company.
Whenever the word used (extreme or abuse) any system require regulation to bond it to some decent limits.
Yes. And if there bent and broke the rules, be assured that there bent and broke everything possible rules in the system. I don't think that this kind of person is profitable for the country in the long term. There just want to exploit the place to the maximum for there own profit and then ask help from the government...
Small business will definitely not be affected by this initiative in Switzerland. Even the government statistic agree on that (and remember that the Swiss government is again this popular initiative). Only a few big companies, and ironically a couple of government owned companies, will be affected.
Business owner that take risk will privately own a lot of share of his company and can get a lot of revenue if he sell them. Because there are PRIVATE share, there are not payed by the company and thus is not part of the 12:1 limitation. So the reward of the risk is not the problem here. Now if you have a successful business and that you needs others competences to make profit, then it's normal to share the profit there help to so. If you think that there are not necessary, then why asking for there time ?
USD 20k per year for a full time work is not enough to live in Switzerland if you are alone. At this stage you will pay no tax at all and get subvention to pay the required medical insurance. You will not find this kind of job from the unemployment office because it will be declared unsuitable. Basically this kind of jobs is part of the black market, mostly driven by strangers that hope to find a better way of life in Switzerland. There can survive some times with that in poor condition and by avoiding controls only if there are not declared. It's highly illegal, and I don't see how a big company can legally exploit this black market. Now there is a very high turnaround in this black market, because Switzerland is actually highly attractive, but there soon discover that it's extremely difficult to live completely hidden there in the long term.
From the Swiss federal statistic of 2011 ( http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/20/03/blank/key/02/06.html ):
* 10% of the population get less than about USD 29k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction.
* 10% of the population get more than about USD 97k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction.
* The median is about USD 53k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction.
So the 12:1 ratio is already a very very comfortable one for the top exec with about USD 348k per year of available revenue, after all tax, insurance and pension deduction if it pay some employee to the lowest possible rate, given that it will be directly in the few percent of the highest of all revenues of country ! You can have more than the double by paying your employee in a fair way. If you expect even more money, then you probably have a pathology related to it.
Top moneymakers can't own the majority of a country's citizens. The 12:1 is actually a popular initiative against the wish of the Swiss government. Swiss citizen known that the government and some media tend to be controlled by lobbies, it's part of the process. This is why the popular referendum and the popular initiative are so important: to let the people own the government, and not the contrary.
Leaving companies is a risk. If there leave only because of that, I don't see what advantage there have to be in Switzerland in the first place, because this is an expensive location. There is already a lot of others locations with lower cost of operation.
The 1:12 ratio is far enough to find a lot of competent executives on this planet without rely on the few ones viscerally too cupid.
Switzerland will maybe try (we will see next day) to start this limitation alone without international coordination. Why asking the others countries to start the limitation too ? The USA's "free market" way of doing business is to ask the others to not be able to compete ? What are you afraid of ? Maybe extreme capitalism don't mix well with long term stability...
The initiative only count the gain from a company to one of his employee. So a mandate or outsourcing is not bound by it. In your example, the star will probably be mandated in person.
The goal is precisely to force the split of operations that have very different values. If a star team need some low task, there can still mandate or outsource it. But if the company is basically a big money pump that exploit lower workers to enrich a few top exec, then the company will have to make a better sharing of the profit. If it choose to split the company in two parts, the "lower" part will be even more profitable and the "higher" part will lost his main revenue. This way the power is inverted. The "lower" company can make a better sharing, and can use services from an other, more concurrent company to do the few tasks remaining in the "higher" company.
According to the Swiss federal statistics the initiative will affect only a few companies. A private company is not a excuse to exploit others. If you privately are the value, you don't need the help of the others for your success. If you need the help of the others to success, it's normal to share the common success. Again, this depend where is the value.
Thinking the way around, maybe poverty exist precisely because of the lack of limitation in the ratio between rich and poor.
The idea is that there is enough competent executives on the planet to not rely on the few one that are viscerally too cupid.
So, why not promoting a direct democracy, with proportional representation, popular referendum and popular initiative in your USA ?
Work well here in Switzerland with 26 states and 4 languages, so why not with about the double of states and far less languages ?
Historically, the Swiss constitution of 1848 have been inspired a lot by the USA constitution. Back to this time the Switzerland just ended a civil war and there politicians have feel that electing a government like the USA do would inevitably create a lot of frustration in the population. Some states haved already a good experience with the proportional representation so there basically mixed it with the democracy idea from the USA.
Actually it's a popular initiative in a direct democracy: nothing related to the a specific party.
Into the detail, the initiative don't only count the salary, but all the gains someone get from a company.
Take in account that in most lucrative business, the work of the lower paid workers produce the biggest profit. So if the company is split into two part, the "lower" part will be even more profitable (not having to pay the high part) and the "high" part will be less profitable (big profit gone, high cost).
Pragmatically the initiative will only affect a few big companies. Small business will be unaffected because this is no such big ratio on it.
If someone pours sweat and tears ALONE into HIS OWN company and then become successful, then is can take as many money as it wants because there is no other salary in the company, then no ration apply at all. If you need help from others, then it's normal to make them part of the COMMON success.
Actually the initiative to be voted don't make the difference between salary, bonus, extra, dividend or capital gain as long as there come from the same company.
Attracting the best talent cost real money.
It depend of your definition of "talent." There is a increasingly number of executive that have the only talent is raising there salary and extras to the maximum imaginable. The recent history have show that a chunk of them are really incompetents. Just take a look into a list of defunct companies....
No. I've a far better idea. ...
No problem ! in Switzerland you are welcome to present your idea in a popular initiative. If you can have 100'000 supporters of your idea (you just have to collect signatures), all the country will vote it.
Great no ? Actually, the 12:1 initiative is the product of this exact process. So let the Swiss vote on it. There will certainly be other vote on that matter in the future.
In France for example, there have now a 75% tax on high revenues. We will see how this will work on the long term...
Yes, the initiative take into account all the extra, not only the salary.
We will see in the long term. It's not impossible that the Swiss citizen will try, because making something is better than nothing. A the minimum you have learned something to maybe make a better future proposal.
Men are in general stronger physically than women...
It depend of the metric you use. You can be right if you focus on the muscular mass, but you will be surprised if you test the precision and the resistance in the long term.
Actually the initiative will only affect big companies and this is precisely the intention: because this is where the problem is.
This is possible, but now just think: witch resulting company will be the most profitable in the long term ?
The one that do the real work and pay low, or the one that do only PR work and pay high ?
At some point the first company will use an other PR company...