- From: Tony Jaa <tonyjaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:57:01 -1000
Barnabas Collins wrote:
Is your problem that he picked too low a number or the principle ofI remember a time when middle managers made $160,000
capping executive compensation for publicly traded companies? For
example, would you be okay with $20 million (I'm think that is the
effective cap for football players <g>).
a year and earned every penney of it. Now the
CEOs have hammered those managers to the
point where they earn alot less and are doing
five times the work.
is someone holding a gun to these peoples head to take the job?
if this is true why not quit?
So what is good for the goose is good for the gander,
cut CEO pay to $125,000 and give them alot more work to
After all it's what they expect from their
Don't want a cap for CEOs? Then repeal the
cap for employees at the lower levels.
what cap? who is forcing these lower employees to take this job?
Too many CEOs make $400 million a year but
pitch a hissy fit if they have to hike the
minimum wage up a couple of dollars.
post references please
The CEO of Exxon made $400 million + plus a year
but he'd scream bloody murder at the prospect
of paying the gas station attendent any more
than minumum wage.
Meanwhile the CEO is busy
wasting time while the gas station attendant
is busting his ass all day. Maybe this CEO
should take a day and work a full day at
one his stations. Maybe it would open his
eyes to what his employees have to live through.
Also interesting that a cap idea is labeled "socialism" or
"communism," when both labels are nonsensical. A cap is what it is ---
a minor and optional feature of welfare-state capitalism.
The market argument for some cap is that the CEOs of pubic companies
are engaging in legalized theft by raiding the corporations for
amounts totally unrelated to their contribution to the company. That
the rewards are nonsensical is obvious --- $1 billion a year for a
hedge manager??? I can gt a garder for $30 bucks an hour who not only
does hedges well but can also built walls, paths, select perenials
that work well together, etc., etc.
The question iw what to do about this market failure. One attempt has
been greater disclosure, but that has not worked v. well. Another is
to change the governance rules or to make takeovers easier, etc.
Perhaps these are better solutions, but a cap is not clearly wrong,
assuming the level is sensible. My preference would be a 80% tax on
compensation over $1 million (or some other acceptable number),
however disguised, but that's because I'm a market person.
- Re: Ceiling
- From: Barnabas Collins
- Re: Ceiling
- Prev by Date: Re: Ceiling
- Next by Date: Re: Ceiling
- Previous by thread: Re: Ceiling
- Next by thread: Re: Ceiling