>This is largely the result of a shift to capital gains income, rather than productivity-based income >among the top few percent, who have gobbled up the growing gap between productivity and income.
There are two problems that face workers. First, productivity has outpaced demand. Second, the world has gotten flat. So, while steel and auto workers could demand high wages in the 60s, and the first half of the 70s because they were in demand, the demand for workers is down now, except in marginal service jobs. Gautam's book may prove unpopular with CEOs because it shows that a filtered leader is not that unique, there are many other candidates who would make the same decision. This would indicate that there is no business basis to pay, for example, Apple's new CEO a 600 million bonus, other contenders for his job would have done just as well. Steve Jobs is different, he's an unfiltered leader. But, he started Apple, and if he failed, then a small company would have failed...as probably many small computer companies failed in the '70s, and many Internet companies failed in the late '90s and early '00s. The good news is that we can, if we have the political will, change the money going to the parisites in the financial sector (and there are a lot of folks in business and business schools who are not in finance who see them as parasites). And, we could cut leadership team income with minimal effect on companies. But, we cannot create many jobs where there is a reason to pay someone a good income. That is a challanging problem. It might best be faced by spreading ownership of corporations, but doing that without the law of unitended consequences bighting us is going to be difficult. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com