I have always felt that there should be a law stating that the highest earner in a company could only make twenty times what the lowest worker did.

So, if you want to pay the CEO a million, you've got to be able to pay the janitor 50 grand.

The CEO would have to see to it that his company is pulling in a whole lot of money to justify his multimillion-dollar salary, and the janitors and receptionists would get a hefty increase each time the CEO did.

I know, I know. It's a pipe dream.

Annie Cieslukowski

Toledo, OH

Wow! Hey Vincent, I am orginally from India and your broad-based assertion attributing the act to a particular "culture" is petty and rascist. There are good and bad people in all races,cultures and countries.

Now about the 'great divide' between the few "privileged" and the majority of "left-outs" in our society today, this is a direct result of 'free market capitalism' gone amuck,thanks to GW and his Repub cronies in congress who (like their hero, RR) have always believed in "trickle down economics" (a k a "left-over-crumbs-from-the-CEOS-table") kind of claptrap,crack-pot policy, driven by their only creed, g-r-e-e-d.

The ciitzens have to take back this Republic and restore democracy before an "implosion" happens.

p.s. Ms Ehrenreich, you have redeemed yourself after the disastrous "What America Owes its 'Illegals'" article.

Paul Amigo

Pennington Gap, VA

You mean that lawyers are even milking their brother and sister lawyers? What about professional ethics?

Gerald Spezio

Willits, CA

As a "temporary faculty" member at a large state university I can attest to the points made here. I'm even one of the lucky ones, a friend of mine adjuncts at two different universities and has a third job and still makes less than I do. Universities, like the corporate world, have placed a premium on cheap, disposable labor. All the money saved by eliminating job security and decent wages goes straight to the top, university presidents like CEOs get paid much more than they used to.

Jason Tebbe

Grand Rapids, MI

Whether Ehrenreich conveniently left out race or nationality in her example of slves being imprisoned in the basement of a fat cat does not diminish her main point, as Espinozo implies. In fact, Espinozo seems intent on diverting Ehrenreich's main point and instead points the finger at "other cultures" and "white liberals."

Hmmm, spank me if I'm wrong, but that tactic (divert from the core issue) seems very much akin to "right-wing" strategies that have become so popular in, oh, let's say, the past six-seven years.

The title of the article is "CEOs vs. Slaves," and the point is not India or other countries; it's not about feudal cultures; it's not about liberalism. It is about the increasing disparity between America's "haves" and "have nots."

For empirical date to provide reasoned discourse about that chasm, the US Census Bureau is a great resource.

Michael Chiaradonna

Bryn Mawr, PA

Ehrenreich conveniently leaves out the fact that the couple who treated their help like slaves were from India or Pakistan, leaving the impression that the brutal employers were good ol' Americans. In most such cases, the people who treat servants (here and abroad) like slaves or sex toys are from India or Muslim countries. This probably derives from living in a feudal culture where workers are treated as personal property. Ehrenreich and other white liberals should have the guts to point this out.

Vicente Espinozo

San Francisco, CA

The Bush Administration has fostered and worsened the pay disparity examined in "CEOs and Slaves" by penalizing the very individuals they claim to serve.

Corporate America certainly demonstrates the widening gap between the "haves" and "have nots." But the US military perhaps best illustrates the irony and hypocrisy of Bush policies. How many times must we multiply the salary of an enlisted GI to get to the salary of a senior Halliburton executive? Even within the military, the higher ranks can expect consulting contracts or book deals when they leave the service, while the soldiers who fought can expect bureaucracy and low wages when they leave.

The Bush Administration was the alleged champion of traditional family values, yet the proposed Social Security privatization of Bush's early second term would have essentially caused impoverished retirement for millions of "stay-at-home" mothers that comprise many traditional families.

And finally, has the standard of living for our nation's elderly really improved in the last six years? The hailed Medicaid prescription drug plan clearly benefits drug companies. Negotiating with drug companies for lower prices or seeking lower cost medicines from other countries would narrow the healthcare gap between the "haves" and "have nots." But the "haves" in the Bush Administration don't see it that way.

Kim Stanley

South Riding, VA