Originally Posted by sammi jo
One thing is for sure: we do not have a meritocracy! The senior executives who were responsible for the decisions that brought so much chaos and collapse to the nation's economy were being paid 8 and 9 figure salaries.
The bail-out money belongs to the taxpayers...ie the public.. and even though I am no fan of dictatorial government, in these times of economic woes, its is an insult to everyone to have another batch of high-flying executives being paid such grossly disproportionate salaries
to continue displaying the same degree of incompetence (perhaps even criminality?) ... after all, what has changed in the world of finance that is going to prevent a similar meltdown from happening yet again, or worse even?
So the government can now change the terms of its bailout after the fact...because the corporations are insulting
people? Our founding fathers were deathly afraid and aware of the dangers of unchecked government expansion and power. If the government can dictate pay because it's insulting now, then we might as well burn the Constitution.
Originally Posted by jimmac
I think it's time someone stood up to these executives so that they learn people just aren't going to take it any longer. I think they'd have to go a long ways beyond this before I'd be concerned.
Take what? These are publicly traded companies. They are responsible to their shareholders, not the federal government. And really...how do high salaries affect you? Do you really think the government has the right to limit pay like that, just because at one point
these companies took bailout money? Don't get me wrong jimmac, I think keeping outrageous salaries is is an extremely bad idea in terms of PR. As a shareholder, I would be having a fit. I just don't think the government should have the right to do what they are doing...unless it was part of the initial agreement to take the money in the first place.
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
I've noticed over the years that many people who call themselves conservatives are actually corporatists.
No, you mean in your opinion
they are corporatists. It's not like you've just now seen some readily observable fact.
What they really believe is that the government's job is to aid and comfort corporations, and if the government ever demands anything return, that this can immediately be called fascism.
I can't speak for others, but what I'm taking issue with is the government altering the deal after the fact based on public perception/politics and nothing more.
Funny, that. In a better world, many of these top executives (who after all brought the economy to the brink of collapse) wouldn't have jobs anymore, let alone big bonuses.
Many don't. Let the shareholders sort it out. Besides, the government encouraged and accelerated the collapse to begin with.
In 1978 CEO compensation was a multiple of 35 times the pay of the average worker. In 2007, the multiple was 275. That must be a function of the great job they are doing -- and if you don't believe it, you must be a fascist.
What you're presenting here is a sort of false dilemma. It's quite possible to not believe either. The point is that it is not the government's job, right or responsibility to set limits on the private sector like this. That is, unless such limits were part of the bailout to begin with
(which would have been understandable, even if I'm not sure it would be a good idea).