PS: I should add that greed is the issue at all levels of society but there is a tendency to target the poorer end rather than examine the excesses in the middle and top end.

A more equitable system would allow a reasonable minimum wage ('living' wage) while acknowledging the burdens of management without some of the ridiculous salaries.

Really the problem lies in wage disparity, the higher the middle/upper salaries, the greater the bracket creep from the bottom up to keep pace with inflationary pressures.

I hope you don't feel like I am crucifying you, I just believe you are attacking the problem from the wrong end.

Everyone ought to have some minimum, but what's that got to do with wages?

Surely one's employer(s) are not one's parents or guardians. Why should someone be responsible for another's welfare and not vice-versa (for example an employee responsible for his/her employer's minimum living conditions)?

Since it is in the interest of society that everyone should have some minimum to live on, then society is the one who ought to provide it, not employers, and the most natural way to do it is by providing a negative income-tax.

What wonderful foresight. ABC2 is running a repeat of the BBC documentary "Blood, sweat and t-shirts".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/thread/blood-sweat-tshirts/

After watching the first part, all I could think was, "Gee, why cant Australia be just like India?". Anyone enjoying the sight of human beings treated like battery chickens would love to go the Indian way.

I'm more concerned about the top-end of the spectrum. We can easily maintain our "lucrative" minimum wage if we just put a cap on the big earners...
In order to stay competitive, let's cut the salaries of executives, cut the dividends of share holders, cut their access to Swiss bank accounts, and make them fly economy class..

But Squeers, you dont get a top without a bottom. The inequality in India is orders of magnitude greater than Australia.

Imagine being able to employ servants to do all your domestic chores for a handful of change. It would be difficult to give up such a luxury were you accustomed to it, and you might even be inclined to defend yourself by arguing that you are helping these people and giving their self esteem a boost at the same time. You are indeed a philanthropist of sorts.

For some, creating a broader spectrum of wealth can be quite lucrative.

One of the problems highlighted by rehctub is the need to be competitive in the global arena. I think that, if we are to impose caps on executive salaries, we will exacerbate that problem. Why run an Australian company when you can hold the same position in a foreign business and earn twice as much? High salaries allow us to be competitive in the executive-seeking market and, though many in here will disagree, I would say that a good executive team is a central component to a good business.

I was an employee and shareholder of Woolworths Corporation when Roger Corbett drove the company well ahead of its rivals. He is a talented businessman who, along with quite a good team, strengthened an Australian company. Say what you will about the supermarkets (and there's a lot to say these days), but the business he ran employs many and contributes huge sums to our taxman's coffers and to our superannuation packages. As his reward, he received a ridiculously large salary.

Whether or not his package was fair or even appropriate is certainly open to debate. However, if our businesses are unable to offer these packages, how can we hope to attract anyone of a high calibre?

While I'd like to see my pay rise and some of the higher-end pays decrease, if we want to be competitive on a global market we need to offer competitive pays or work really, really hard to convince business leaders that life in Australia is so wonderful that they should be willing to sacrifice terrific salaries to come here.