Is this Fair?

The FairShare Framework: What it is and what it isn’t 

June 23, 2026

  • Is it fair that CEOs in the U.S., on average, earn roughly 20 times the pay of the average worker?
  • Is it fair that the top 1% of families in America own more wealth than 90% of the rest of the country?
  • Is it fair that the quality of a child’s public education is largely determined by local property taxes?
  • Is it fair that housing prices have gone up so much that a couple earning a combined income of $100,000 can’t afford to buy a house of any size?

Is any of this fair?

No, it’s not. But whenever someone brings up the idea of a “fair share” economy or society, the hyperbolic paranoia come out of the woodwork. It’s anti-American and anti-capitalism!

The United States has been built on the premise that individual fortitude, grit, and determination have fueled the most successful and prosperous country in modern history, and there’s something to be said for that. Individual drive and motivation remain among the most valuable drivers of the American economy today. We reward individual achievements.

But that’s not the full story.

People rarely achieve wealth or success on their own.

Some enjoy significant benefits and advantages from inherited assets, contacts, and resources, including educational opportunities. Others benefit from favorable federal and state government investments, such as the national highway system and funds that support critical pharmaceutical research. No man or woman is an island. We are as dependent on others (including governments) as we are on the air we breathe.

That’s why the idea of “fair share” resonates with so many people.

It’s simply the right thing to do. Everyone should benefit from this country’s success.

Isn’t that Socialism or Marxism?

No. This is not about the government owning production or property. It’s not about getting rid of capitalism. It’s about a concept that fueled much of the 20th Century: when the economy grows, most people should share in that growth.

Not a favored class. Not the one-tenth of one percent. Not the oligarchs. Everybody.

A Brief Historical Perspective

After World War II, rising productivity translated into rising wages. Businesses expanded, workers advanced, and the middle class grew. High corporate profits and executive compensation existed, but they were constrained by tax policy, social norms, and institutional counterweights like unions and competition policy.

This period was not perfect — it excluded many Americans, particularly women and people of color — but it demonstrated an important principle: broad-based growth fuels long-term prosperity.

Beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating through the 1980s and 1990s, that balance shifted. Policy choices changed. Labor markets weakened. Financial incentives tilted toward capital and short-term returns. Compensation structures evolved in ways that rewarded leverage and scale more than shared performance.

The result in the U.S. has been a widening gap between economic output and economic security for many households — even as overall wealth increased.

CEO Pay vs. Worker Pay

Take CEO pay compared to the typical worker pay of today and yesterday.

In 1965, CEO pay was roughly 20 times the average worker’s pay. By the 1980s, the difference jumped to 30-40 times.

But by 2000, CEO pay leaped to 300x the pay of the average worker and is now 300-400x at large public firms.

 

What caused this change? There are several reasons.

First, there was an intellectual shift in which CEOs were seen as agents of shareholders (promoted by economist Milton Friedman) and not stewards of the firm.

Second, compensation changed. Executive compensation moved heavily into stock options and equity grants. As a result, pay became tied to share price, not company health or workforce outcomes. Because stock options afforded to CEOs benefit from an improved stock price, executives gained incentives by cutting labor costs, implementing buy-back shares, and focusing on short-term stock movements.

Also, the decline of unions and changes in corporate governance (more CEOs on boards) weakened the counterweights that used to be in place. Favorable tax treatments of stock-based compensation also contributed to the discrepancy.

There’s one other factor—the myth of the irreplaceable CEO. Numerous board leaders have clung to this notion despite the absence of empirical evidence supporting it.

Why All of This Matters

Every economic system depends on more than numbers. It depends on trust — trust that effort matters, that rules are fair, and that opportunity for every person is real.

When people believe the system is balanced, they invest in it. They work hard, build, take risks, and plan for the future. They start and raise families; they establish roots in communities.

When that belief fades, participation declines and polarization rises. This polarization—like what we see today—erodes trust in government, political leadership, the rule of law, and democracy itself.

FairShare is about rebuilding that trust—one citizen at a time.

Ultimately, a FairShare Framework is about preserving the conditions that allow a market economy to thrive over time, an increasingly important goal in light of the economic advances by China.

What is FairShare?

FairShare is a framework for asking whether the economy still works as intended.

It means that full-time work should support a basic standard of living; when it doesn’t, the resulting imbalance should be addressed.

FairShare also means that rewards at the top should rise when companies and institutions succeed, but that success should be more widely shared with all employees, not just the CEO. When gains become too concentrated, concentrated power—like what we see today—poses a grave threat to the health of the American economy and society.

FairShare means that public investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and stability are not charity. They are inputs into a functioning market economy.

What FairShare Is Not

  • FairShare is NOT anti-business. In fact, it assumes that profitable businesses are essential to a healthy economy.
  • FairShare is NOT about punishing success or capping ambition. It does not argue against wealth creation or innovation.
  • FairShare is NOT socialism, central planning, or government micromanagement of the economy.
  • FairShare is NOT about taking from one group to give to another for its own sake. It is about developing a framework in which individual enterprise AND shared societal benefits are mutually supportive.

Let’s emphasize that last point.

FairShare is not a call for equality of outcomes. It does not argue that everyone should earn the same income or accumulate the same wealth. Markets produce differences, and those differences are both natural and necessary in a system that rewards innovation, skill, and risk-taking.

What FairShare does argue is that the distribution of rewards should remain connected to contribution, and that the benefits of growth should be broad enough to keep the system stable, productive, and legitimate. The system should be fair to all, not just a lucky few.

It also proposes promoting a larger and stronger middle class, one that encompasses a broad range of demographic groups and geographic regions.

At its core, FairShare is about balance: balance between effort and reward, between risk and security, and between private success and public responsibility. It asks whether the rules of the economic system still work for the society that sustains them.

This article and others can be found on the Orange County Democratic Party Substack page here: https://substack.com/@orangedemsnc.