I think that the string attatched ought to be that the idiots who got us onto this ship leave, and we bring in new people who might have a chance to do something. That said your not going to have much luck finding the most talented new blood if you limit it to $500,000 per year. I'm a community college drop out recovering from cancer who's still fighting anemia and I'm on track to make more then that this year. I might have some good ideas to turn one of the banks around, but you wouldnt get me to take on those kind of hours and that kind of responsibility for 500K, no way in hell.
Exactly! It's total populist bullshit that feeds into the hatred of the rich, which is always good for votes, and nothing more. Your simply not going to get talented people to run these companies for $500,000 per year, period. The example of the US President is total BS because NOBODY becomes president for the pay, where as a lot of people (nearly all) go to Wall Street for the pay. Your looking at totally different motivations. In any case with the job Bush did and that Obama is doing thus far, I'd suggest we have all been either paying the president too much, or maybe we should offer a big ass raise and hope someone who is qualified would then want the job.
i second that feeling. also typical how jf*cheerleader compansates lack of substance in his posts by loads of aggressivity...
You boys seem very easily lead astray. Here you are facing a problem of dimensions that defy description and you are fighting amongst yourselves. regards f9
Hey Brandon, Have you read this article before?? http://www.nypost.com/seven/11152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/fail_to_the_chiefs_138879.htm It helps put things in prespective. John
Most of the execs who caused their institutions to seek TARP are already out the door anyway. Are Bob Rubin or Stan O'Neill rebating their comp? Broadcast networks get their "public" airwaves for free from the FCC. Better clamp down on Brian Williams salary. And if sports stadiums are going to be built by taxpayers then those first round signing bonuses better be eliminated too. And those pious corporations who're solvent only because they make billions on government contracts-how dare them pay execs millions.
learn the difference between earnings and a welfare check welfare lady: 'now leroy, if you take this welfare check, you agree to show that you are looking for work' Leroy: 'dat non o yo businss, bitch, i do wut i mudafuggin please, no wut i'm say-in?' Government: 'In exchange for this trillion dollar bailout, there may be limitations on executive pay' Banking exec: 'dat non o yo businss, bitch, i do wut i mudafuggin please, no wut i'm say-in?' only difference is, leroy's getting WAY less money
Let's compare apples to apples here. If the government gave the NFL $20 billion and guaranteed all its debt, than yes, controlling the top 5 salaries in the company isn't a bad idea. Building a stadium to generate tax income doesn't even apply to this argument. I have no idea what free FCC air waves are or what you would charge for them if they weren't free (probably not $700 billion), but I do know if you broadcast on them and if your company is creating a giant black hole in the economy, the government would probably take your free air waves away. Other than companies that manufacture weapons and technology for the Department of Defense, please list the companies that make billions from government contracts. And you really see no difference in producing goods and services for the government and the government printing money and guaranteeing debt so the country doesn't fall into a depression?