Angry senator wants pay cap on Wall Street 'idiots'

[lonesomefool]

I have no problem with this. Just make it so than any new money these companies accept, has these conditions, that way they cant cry "well we didnt know when we accepted the money!!".

Also, Ray, I suggest you read Tom Wolfe's "The Bonfires of Vanities".

[JamesV]

I believe if you take someone's money - especially the governments - they are entitled to some say over that money.

I think there is nothing wrong with stripping away bonus and other frivolities.

But I think you have to be careful when setting up to do battle in a case like this. We spend a lot of time complaining about the bank CEOs and the multi-millionaires who we want to see fucking choke on something, but forget the ripple effects a power struggle can have.

These companies aren't exclusive to Wall Street and they aren't just made up of people making hundreds of thousands or millions a year. There are people further down the rung. If a bank completely collapses, the person making a million a year is gonna be fine. The person working as a teller in the local branch, is the one in trouble when the company needs to tighten down.

And while this bill doesn't effect the persons cleaning the building or other lower level/under paid tasks, a power struggle could. It's not like these CEOs care about being liked, but if one of these companies was to collapse, the ripple effects, felt all over the place, would be an issue.

So, yeah, regulate how they spend their money. Fuck the bonuses. Fuck rewarding people for doing a good job when they failed miserably, but you have to be careful.

[Frozen Sooner]

Awesome, Ray. The guy making $45k a year and gets his hours cut at GM is financially irresponsible when his home gets foreclosed on according to Republicans. The guy making $750k per year and gets it cut to $400k per year and gets foreclosed on is a victim.

[Doc Randy]

Shouldn't this be like the Whole Foods salary model where the CEO wasn't making more than 14 times the average worker's pay?

That's what I always wanted. And oddly enough, more and more shareholders are starting to ask for limits.

Heck... we can even make the ration higher to something like 50:1. It would still be the highest CEO-to-worker's salary ratio in the entire industrialized world.

To put this in a global perspective...

In Japan, the ratio is 15:1
In Germany, the ratio is 20:1

In the US in 1960, it was 40:1.
In the US today, it is now around 460:1.

[Doc Randy]

This is a feel good gesture, nothing more, and will only result in some good CEOs leaving companies that need good CEOs.

If they have ran their companies into the ground and are taking government money, can they really be considered good CEOs?

[Brother Power the Gong]

If they have ran their companies into the ground and are taking government money, can they really be considered good CEOs?

B-I-N-G-O, and bingo was it's name-oh.

[PatrickA]

If they have ran their companies into the ground and are taking government money, can they really be considered good CEOs?

No, but that's not really what is at issue here. There are two factors to consider:

1- There are a number of CEOs that have only come in to these companies in the last year or so. Not true in all cases, of course, but true in enough. If I just came into Company XYZ in the last six months and am working to try to save it and they tell me "we've got to cut your salary" I would be out of there in a minute. I came into a bad situation, so I probably have an excellent out clause. I'll take my cash and let some other smuck deal with the aggrevation.

2-What's more, it could be argued that companies that are taking money are in need of the most help. If the Board of whatever company is now inclined to drop whoever their current CEO, they probably can't hire someone under these restrictions. If I'm a good CEO, I'm not going to hire on with them unless they make it worth my time.

edited to add: But again, this is a feel good measure and not an actually accomplish something measure. I'd like the government to focus on what matters, not relatively minor stuff like this.

[A.Huerta]

Here is a good introduction to the problem I was talking about:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4502673n

Thats exactly what I was talking about. ANd that CEO comes off so nonchalant that its pretty scary on how these type of people are in charge.

[Ray G.]

Awesome, Ray. The guy making $45k a year and gets his hours cut at GM is financially irresponsible when his home gets foreclosed on according to Republicans. The guy making $750k per year and gets it cut to $400k per year and gets foreclosed on is a victim.

The government is taking the initiative to screw that guy over.

If you've been living on a certain sum and it drastically gets cut, you're going to have trouble.

But hey, we can always add that guy who's salary was just cut by government fiat to the latest bailout, right?

This will help NO ONE. It is a punitive measure designed to make certain people feel good. If you can tell me who this helps, go ahead.

[David Aspmo]

If you can tell me who this helps, go ahead.

Well, the problem for the company (indicated by the fact that it is taking the bailout money) is that it needs more money.

If the company was paying these guys less money, then it would then have more money.

.
David Aspmo