Salary Case
Essay Preview: Salary Case
Report this essay
Introduction:
The intention of this essay is to inform and persuade you of the morality in the disparity between executives and workers salary. I will be analyzing case 19, executive salary. The major salary difference between executives and workers is justified and does not go against any moral rules. I will support this assertion through the use analogies, common misconceptions, and flaws in objection views. From the beginning of time until the very end, a higher risk will always result in a higher reward if successful.
Argument:
As “Occupy Wall Street” gained momentum through media coverage in the past years, the debate on executive salaries has been receiving more scrutiny. Americans have been outraged by the fact that executive salaries have grown to a record 200 times that of an average employee. Once the financial crisis happened in 2008, Americans blamed executives for the bad economic conditions and insisted that laws be put into place to have their enormous salary amounts be cut. Individuals began to link enormous executive salaries with a companys bad performance. There still is no policy enacted to demand executive salaries be cut but there is a policy called Dodd-Frank that forces companies to disclose the executive to worker salary ratio. It is now more of a moral issue rather than a legal problem rather this disparity has to change or not.
In my opinion this disparity is more than justified, and should remain the same if the same conditions that comes along with being an executive remains the same. It is a common fact that a higher risk will bring a higher reward in return for taking on that higher risk. In most cases the executives of a company were in that position since the ground floor of the companys start. These individuals started this company with either their own cash through debt or savings, and risked losing that capital if their company failed. For taking this huge step, it is only morally acceptable that they be greatly compensated for taking this risk.
There are many instances where a soldier is awarded with the Medal of Honor for some extraordinary achievement he or she did while in duty. For example, there is a building with hostages guarded by terrorists. This rebellious soldier decides to defy his commanders order and runs into the building solo, and kill the terrorists making it safe to recover the hostages. This radical soldier is praised for his action and receives a pay raise, higher rank, and the Medal of Honor. Most people will agree that his new prosperity is justified for him taking action when others would not, so is it morally acceptable to reward the other soldiers with the same honor for helping carry out the hostages?
Now take the flip side of it, that same soldier rushes into the building and not only does he get himself killed but also the hostages. He has now lost his life, the hostages lives, and his name would probably be tainted for years to come. This was the risk he took, and it only seems morally right that he be greatly compensated for risking his life and reputation. Same case with executives, if they failed, not only did they lose their money, investors money, but also placed their self in extreme debt. Their livelihood would be greatly ruined for years because of this, so is it not morally justified that they benefit from their assumed risk?
Executives not only risk more than a worker but also bring more value to the table. In order to be an effective and successful executive, you must have certain abilities such as making a vision come alive, motivating individuals to work to their full potential, and handling many different tasks at one time. All of these abilities are essential to a companys success and if any one of this attributes are lacking then failure is imminent. Workers are only plagued with the duty of performing one to a few tasks at one time, so they do not have plenty of daunting tasks overwhelming them from day to day. Usually these few tasks can be performed within a set time period, thus the set work hours. An executives duties are never on a time schedule because they are constantly busy with working to improve the company. Is it not morally justified for an individual to get paid more for doing more tasks and working longer hours to insure the success of their company?
To support my assertion even further, consider the fact that there are numerous CEOs that has a base salary of $1. For example Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, has now committed to receiving a $1 salary, and has his fortune linked to stocks in the company. He has a net worth of $14 billion. Zuckerbergs financial status is directly linked to the performance of the company through stock options. So unlike the worker, if the company fails then the CEO is now bankrupt while the employee still maintains the money he or she has earned. Is it morally acceptable for employees to take home nice salaries each year and remain in good fortune