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.
It's beginning. We have started on the road to communism. We all looked at Russia with amazement when they nationalized their oil industry...well, it's started here. The gov't has taken over the financial industry, and it will spread to other areas.
As a general rule, government does not run business as efficiently as private industry. It can't. The idea that the government can tell private industry what to do is stupid. There is a reason that talented people tend to not work for the government--they just don't pay as well as private industry. This idea of a salary cap is only going to hurt the companies.
Then the private industry shouldnt come to the government begging for money either. Let them all fail.
All those "talented" people are what got us in this mess, both private sector and govt. TALENTED CROOKS!
I'm not disagreeing with your point about the behavior of the executives, and I'm not saying it would be bad if they left. My point is that once they leave, you're in the position of hiring executives at about a quarter of the salary they can earn elsewhere.
I appreciate your point, but with the all the cutbacks and closings, how many elsewheres are there going to be that can afford these type salaries? The feds restricting the salaries in companies they bailout may be notable, but many of these companies are publicly traded. And people/stockholders may have said nothing when things were going along fine and the stocks were steadily increasing in value, but as those stockholders see their stocks falling in value, and face increasing possibilities of unemployment themselves, there are a lot of people pointing the finger at the compensation packages upper management received. There was an opin piece yesterday in the NYT about corporate execs having to appreciate that there has been a major shift in public opinion, and that the rules have changed. Regardless of how fair that shift is, many, many companies are going to respond by re-evaluating management's compensation packages. Those salaries are in recession, too.
I appreciate your point, but with the all the cutbacks and closings, how many elsewheres are there going to be that can afford these type salaries? The feds restricting the salaries in companies they bailout may be notable, but many of these companies are publicly traded. And people/stockholders may have said nothing when things were going along fine and the stocks were steadily increasing in value, but as those stockholders see their stocks falling in value, and face increasing possibilities of unemployment themselves, there are a lot of people pointing the finger at the compensation packages upper management received. There was an opin piece yesterday in the NYT about corporate execs having to appreciate that there has been a major shift in public opinion, and that the rules have changed. Regardless of how fair that shift is, many, many companies are going to respond by re-evaluating management's compensation packages. Those salaries are in recession, too.
I think that companies should re-evaluate and stockholders are likely to demand it. That's different from a federal mandate. I also think that the atmosphere of re-evaluating may result in CEO openings. I agree that the salaries will likely be less with less bonuses (which I support), but they're likely to still be significantly more than what the government mandates.
Unfortunately many of the leadership who created the damage are gone and now replaced with firemen. The question might be? Do you cut the salary of firemen in the middle of the fire? Let's hope we don't see in the future a headline about the brain drain from government backed entities.
And those firemen/women were just moved up but were part of that system as well. If they were so smart, they would have seen this coming (and done something about it) long ago.
Regardless, if you get bailout funds, the USG should be able to stipulate such things. IMHO, the USG should also have a seat on their board, voting rights, etc.
Brain drain? To where? What industry? I'm just not seeing it.
I think that companies should re-evaluate and stockholders are likely to demand it. That's different from a federal mandate. I also think that the atmosphere of re-evaluating may result in CEO openings. I agree that the salaries will likely be less with less bonuses (which I support), but they're likely to still be significantly more than what the government mandates.
I thought the government madate only applied to businesses receiving bailout funds, not all businesses in general. Maybe I'm wrong.... (it wouldn't be the first time!)
I thought the government madate only applied to businesses receiving bailout funds, not all businesses in general. Maybe I'm wrong.... (it wouldn't be the first time!)
It was just for the ones receiving bailout funds, and applies until the funds are paid back.
It's kind of like when you loan your friend money for an "emergency" and then see said friend buying a brand new jaguar.
I thought the government madate only applied to businesses receiving bailout funds, not all businesses in general. Maybe I'm wrong.... (it wouldn't be the first time!)
No, you're correct. My post may have been confusing.
[quote=Rggr;7317231 That's different from a federal mandate. [/QUOTE]
Federal mandate? By implying that this is a "federal mandate" you paint the false impression that via government fiat all corporate salaries and benefits are to be fixed by the Federal government, you also imply that such a fix is mandatory, neither of which is true. A company can fully opt not to participate in the TARP and as a result can spend to their hearts desire. They are also free to withdraw from FDIC protection. It is a free country.
Federal mandate? By implying that this is a "federal mandate" you paint the false impression that via government fiat all corporate salaries and benefits are to be fixed by the Federal government, you also imply that such a fix is mandatory, neither of which is true. A company can fully opt not to participate in the TARP and as a result can spend to their hearts desire. They are also free to withdraw from FDIC protection. It is a free country.
It sounds like a good idea, however, these executives don't have to work for the companies that have received aid. In addition, I'm not really sure how the government has these limits structured, but executives have benefits that most people can only dream about that's NOT in the form of direct cash/salary. Executives could ask for, say... premium medical insurance for life, high end company car(s), etc. The companies will have to find a loophole around the salaries (and they will) in order to attract the "talent" they need. These high profile executives are not the type of people who will work for "peanuts" and they don't grovel to the government on behalf of their company for less than a certain amount. All this is doing is proving a political point.
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.
