Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One thing I do like about Paul is his promise to only take $39k if elected. Where he falls short is not calling on the inhabitants if this country's board rooms to do the same.
CEO pay should be linked to performance, based on performance the last few years they all should be making minimum wage right now.
using your argument that pay should be linked to performance, what can we summarize from Pauls promise to only take a salary of $39K? That he wont be performing very well?
Except for union employees, who should get mandatory COLA's, pay raises, and pension protection...regardless of how the company, municipality, or government agency they work for is doing.
What do they get when the Union's investments fail? Who is responsible for Union fraud? I'm certain you do NOT mean other citizens.
The US should be setting this trend, encouraging fairer treatment of employees and social upward mobility, in which we used to be the world leader. No more.
FTSE 100 company bosses enjoyed a 49 per cent rise in salaries in the last financial year, while their companies only saw a 3 per cent rise in value.
It is no business of yours unless you are a voting stock holder or on a board of directors as to what is paid to a CEO or worker for their job.
The market dictates the pay.
If you are worth more you get more.
If you are NOT worth more and if there was a salary bubble bursting, then you are deserving of less pay whether a worker or CEO.
If it is a private sector job, it is up to the market.
On the other side, the government unions should be no more. The millions for pensions should be taxed back to our treasury and wages for government workers should be at most 80% of what is average for the private market.
They are living on our tax dollars and breaking the bank.
There are also 90% too many government employees right now. Back in the 60s we had maybe 1 in a 100 working for government, now it is about 1-10. That is not sustainable.
At least if a private company goes down it should be on the back of that company; with over government employment and their unions you have a whole country that could go down.
Why should he or any member have the government have any say with what I do with my money?
You ever have a job where one of your co-workers under performed, was lazy and/or did not do they job they were hired and paid to do? As a member of that team did you cover for and allow that under performing working to skate along.
If a board room drives the company into the ground they failed to do their job. No difference than a line worker, demoted them or fire them, you don't give them bonuses and raises for failing.
You ever have a job where one of your co-workers under performed, was lazy and/or did not do they job they were hired and paid to do? As a member of that team did you cover for and allow that under performing working to skate along.
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
If a board room drives the company into the ground they failed to do their job. No difference than a line worker, demoted them or fire them, you don't give them bonuses and raises for failing.
But who is to decide that? Certainly not the government. It's the folks who are paying that decide how much and under what circumstances to pay.
Why should the government have any control of what people do with their money?
But who is to decide that? Certainly not the government. It's the folks who are paying that decide how much and under what circumstances to pay.
Why should the government have any control of what people do with their money?
Where did I say anything about the government? That is your straw man, not mine.
But since you raise the government.... If raises and bonuses shouldn't be linked to performance in the private section, how about the government? Shouldn't the government learn a thing or two from the private sector? Then there shouldn't be a problem when they fo.
Where did I say anything about the government? That is your straw man, not mine.
But since you raise the government.... If raises and bonuses shouldn't be linked to performance in the private section, how about the government? Shouldn't the government learn a thing or two from the private sector? Then there shouldn't be a problem when they fo.
I am not in a position to respond in regards to the "abuse" you mentioned. I neither debating it or agreeing with it.
However, since it is offtopic, I didn't bother researching it either.
I didn't bring up the proxy issue, I merely responded to it.
I take it that your 'ditto' approving of the illusion of the power of share-holder proxy votes is something that you cannot defend so you choose to ignore your own convictions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
