Under capitalism, corporate executives deserve the salaries that they are paid.

I accept my opponent's definitions, but I would like to provide a bit of analysis of the resolution before getting to arguments. Because the resolution states "the salaries," we should be considering the salaries that executives are currently being paid. Because there are differences in these salaries between different businesses, some less controversial than others, I believe it would be best to focus on the heart of the issue – whether large executives deserve the higher salaries that they typically receive or not. Contention 1: Corporate executives may work, but they do not have a greater workload than a worker at a much lower position. Consider a simple oil-rig worker. The average worker in this situation will work 40 hour weeks in dangerous, labor intensive conditions. Their pay is about 979 dollars for those forty hours. (http://www.bls.gov...) But most importantly, their job is the most crucial – if there were no people mining for the oil, the entire business would collapse. However, executives working in significantly safer conditions, in positions that are important, but not nearly as essential as the miners, for the same 40 hour week make twice that much. (http://www.bls.gov...) This difference in pay is the heart of controversy in this topic, and reveals the problem with not only corporate executive salaries in general, but the inequality in workplaces. Contention 2: Overpaying executives creates an economic gap between the wealthier and poorer people The logic behind this argument need not be explained. As long as one group of people is being payed more than another group, whether that pay is fair or not, then wealth distribution is affected. This is harmful for economy, for, contrary to the concept of "Trickle-Down" economics, there are constantly people who are not benefited from the investments of the wealthy. Moreover, as the rich become richer and the poor become poorer, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain a healthy economy. At the point that the majority of the people in a society are poor, unemployment and deflation occur – suddenly, people need items to cost less money in order to purchase them, which causes the investments of the rich to become practically worthless. While I understand that these arguments seem as though they rely upon "slippery-slope" logic, the effects of this very concept are seen today in the current economic crisis. As the wealthier Americans purchased mortgages and home equity loans from banks as investments, the point when people could no longer pay them turned those loans into toxic assets, draining money out of the US, and ultimately world, economy. I'm certain I don't need to explain the harms of an economic crisis like the one we currently experience. Just as a brief argument against my opponent, I'd like to say that my Contention 1 shows the flaw in my opponent's lone contention. Yes, corporate executives are doing a job, and they do deserve to be paid according to capitalist ideology. However, the conflict rises at the point that executives are paid more than those under them. I urge a negative vote. I now turn time over to my opponent...