"An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money."
I, for one, think this is a breath of fresh air. Im not agianst capitalism. And since we are bailing these idiots out, there sould be restrictions on the welfare recepients.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
"An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money."
I, for one, think this is a breath of fresh air. Im not agianst capitalism. And since we are bailing these idiots out, there sould be restrictions on the welfare recepients.
It's no different then if they declared bankruptcy. A judge tells them how they can spend the money. If you come to get public money, there should be some oversight on how it is spent.
__________________
"it's not that I am lazy, I just don't care"
If I were working for Company X, Company X took bail-out money, Company X then capped my compensation below what I could earn at Company Y . . . I would be beating a path to Company Y in a hurry. Under some circumstances this scenario might not play out . . . but in other circumstances it likely would play out. That could be damaging to Company X. I don't know that handcuffing Company X in this way is an unalloyed, 24 karat gold solution.
This may seem far fetched, but it was my experience for a number of years that technology companies had some kind of annual compensation increase cap in place that led to people getting at best about 5% pay increases every year. The solution was to jump ship to a new company about every other year for "market adjustment." The first line managers were well aware of the disparity between their wages and the dynamics of the market, but some guy in HR, I guess, figured he had "control of the universe" and just put a cap on raises. They couched it all in a lengthy analysis based on "benchmarking" against compensation increase policies of peer technology companies. What this "benchmarking" overlooked (some of us figured overlooked DISINGENUOUSLY, since it was such an obvious point) was that only raises of people staying in the company were considered, not the pay increases people received when they hired on. Laughably naieve, and the unintended consequence was many good people got the cream of the learning opportunities in each of these companies and moved on just about at the time they would have been kicking into a high gear of productivity -- the very value that was used to justify their 20% pay increase at the next company. Ha! Ha! Unintended consequences can eat your lunch.
I am also against bailing out anyone, but since they did there surely should be salary caps. If some of these people think they will get better money at some other company, good luck to them. I highly doubt there will be too many openings in wall street type jobs for these people to go somewhere else.
Steve863: Maybe you are right . . . maybe you are wrong. The notion that a well educated man with a MBA from a top ten business school withvast knowledge and experience on Wall Streetcan't transfer his skills from a finance firm on Wall Street somewhere else doesn't pass my reality test. Absolutely these guys can make this move. Maybe they won't make it right now, but what about 8 months from now? What about 18 months from now? Will those compensation limits still be in effect then? Will a tide of these experienced, top educated people flowing out the door hide strap these businesses and enfeeble the assets that the government has invested in? Certainly could. Unintended consequences.
But what the heck, this would be the least of the mistakes that our government is making at this point in time, so why bother to dwell on this. I've got other fish to fry.
How can you bail out a private company with public funds then think you can manage those companies financially? It becomes a case of governmental control in the private sector which is a big no no. I for one say screw the bail outs and let the market land where it may.
Let's try to get an answer on this thread. Those of you who agree with salary caps under the disguise of taking tax payer money, then do you also agree with the below restrictions dictating you how you will live your life if you accept government run health care subsidized with tax payer money?
[blockquote]quote:
Keep feeling that way when Government run healthcare is enacted. What's going to be you feeling when they tell you, your too fat, not you can consume adult drinks, You need to pee in a cup twice a month for us, no red meat isn't good for you, your going on a vegitable diet, do you excercise for 10 hours each week?
You better agree with both above positions if your cheering on the public healthcare system.Both are the exact same thing.
[/blockquote]
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
Good thing, or just more Government controle?
