And it's pretty simple. You take the annual income of the lowest paid employee at the company and multiply it by 40. If the CEO makes more in one year than their lowest paid employee can make there in 40 years, they are part of the problem.
For example, the federal minimum wage in the USA is $7.25, which works out to $15,080/yr (based on a 40 hr work week). In 40 years, an employee on minimum wage can earn a maximum of $603,200. So yeah. The threshold for me is calculable, which I like because I don't automatically hate anyone who is wealthy, or earns 6 figures, or had support from their parents to give them an advantage in the world. But there gets to be a point where you are exploiting others, and this feels like a pretty clear metric.
What do you think – what are other metrics that you use to determine where the line is from understandable to exploitative?
Edit: words