This ignores the other compensations in the form of benefits. Again, if you provide less company benefits, you can afford to pay more in real dollars per hour. The total cost of employment is the only legitimate measuring stick. Looking at only the hourly wage written on the pay stub, is to see only a fraction of the picture.
A shocking glimmer of intelligence
You must do business totally different than most companies.
Here's how most companies function. You take the cost of producing the product, and subtract that from the price you can sell it at. This is called "profit". From the profits, is where management takes their pay from.
(business 101)
In other words, if the cost of producing a car is $16K, and you can only sell it for $15.5K... does it matter how much management is being paid? No... because the cost of building the car is more than how much the car can sell for. Cost to build is labor + material. Do you see management in that equation? No.
Again, management takes their cut from the profits off of the sales. If the CEO was paid ZERO... the cost to build the car, is still higher than the revenue from the sale. In other words, they are still going bankrupt. What part of this don't you get? Do you operate your business differently?
If anything, by demanding reduced compensation, you reduce the incentive to turn the company around. WaMu for example, the CEO got the job, convinced government to give them a bail out, and then collected his cash and left. WaMu ended up failing WITH Bail-out Baracks tax money giveaway.
