The Anticipated Moderating Effects of the Second Leg on Top-Tier Pay

The reader will recall the expression, "Perish the thought" or, perhaps, "Don't even think about it": well, this is the mathematical version of it, spoken into the mind's ear of any who might wish to be ambitious at the material expense of their co-workers and fellow citizenry.
A rigorous testing of the formulas (itemized in the addendum) will reveal a system structured to be rather forgiving at lower income levels but progressively more prohibitive at levels of pay deemed to be lavish, if the context in which they occurred did not merit such pay.
Clearly, company executives would be forced into thinking very hard before casually entitling themselves to large amounts of cash they didn't really need and couldn't really justify having earned, relative to what their co-workers were being paid for their own contributions, in the collective effort to derive a profit under the umbrella of social protection we know as corporate identity.

Over time, as more equitable pay practices became the norm, in response to the expanding reach of POPE in the economy, the potential weight lifted from the shoulders of Congress - in social repair efforts no longer needed - could be huge.

The actual formulas in the sections described above are laid out in an addendum to this writing. They appear to work well for every size company, from three persons up to the very largest.

No doubt, some will say that any idea about what can be considered to be an unfair taking in the form of pay from a company's gross payroll set-aside is an essentially arbitrary judgment. I would not attempt to disagree. Nevertheless, the body of laws we live under - and to which we subscribe for our own greater benefit - is shot through with such arbitrary judgments about what is appropriate in a shared environment and what is not. It is what we have empowered government to do. By virtue of being conjoined under a single flag, we’re compelled to decide what the limits to acceptability are. One of the reasons we humans chose to create and sustain governments, in the first place, was to make such judgments and enforce them so that individuals might be relieved of the discomforts, dangers and costs of fighting over the nuances of our differences and, instead, submit such differences to the terms of a common code, to the greater sum contentment of all. Under such conditions, personal freedom, far from being constricted, is vastly enhanced.
I submit that current understandings that underlie what people are paid are totally archaic. Their primitive imperatives still languish in the realm of the law of the jungle. The reason for this is that the winners of the game have, so far, been able to make the rules that suit them best. The getting of money has a visceral hold over people that arises in the most primitive part of the brain. As a result, difference in pay is the hatching ground of many of our deepest, and most lasting, personal and class resentments. It is an area dreadfully in need of some kind of commonly respected authority, answerable to a higher set of considerations, to defend what is considered decent, fair and sustainable. We subscribe to no admirable standard in continuing to allow ourselves to be separated into a society of winners and losers.

Other critics, upon reading this, will attempt to argue that companies dealing in millions, hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars can't afford the relatively simple payroll software that it would take to do these calculations on an automated basis, or the qualified staff to prepare the reports.
I don't buy that one bit; nor should any person of reasonable mind. Given the advantages to be gained from federally sponsored backing, how can those who head up corporations of even modest size justify not participating, in light of the relatively small amount of setup needed? Moreover, given the social gains to be had, how can we, as a society, afford not to give them the opportunity?
Realistically, one has to expect the normal reflexive suspicion most people display when confronted with new ideas - like those offered here - but not be cowed by it.
The most formidable opponents, without a doubt, will be those who, having other, darker, reasons for not wanting to take on the burdens of rebuilding social equity - reasons that have little to do with the general social good - will not make plain their true motives for opposing these ideas and contrive a host of more socially palatable reservations to load the case against change. Their adherence to the creed of self-interest, though highly developed and unshakeable, is artfully cloaked in an appearance of representing the interests of others. Unmasking them is no easy task.
These wolves in sheep’s clothing will be hard to smoke out, but finding them and exposing their true motives is something we should be prepared to do in defense of social equity. They readily pay lip service to noble causes, but an equitable society is the last thing they actually want.