So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

experienced in what? failing to the tune of tens of billions of dollars? darn, how will things go on without them?

lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Or they can choose not to accept federal money. Which, y'know, would be the responsible way to go.

hillbillypharmacist: lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Or they can choose not to accept federal money. Which, y'know, would be the responsible way to go.

THIS.

hillbillypharmacist: lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Or they can choose not to accept federal money. Which, y'know, would be the responsible way to go.

yup. The money should not be treated/viewed as a "do-over" since they failed with their own money. It should be viewed as a last-resort that HAS STRINGS ATTACHED.

Fair.

You want my tax dollars, you be a little frugal with your own.

You do well enough to not want my tax dollars, champagne and hookers every day for all I care.

burndtdan: experienced in what? failing to the tune of tens of billions of dollars? darn, how will things go on without them?

Oh. Snap.

i see no problem with this. i'm sure there are plenty of fark independents™ who do, though.

hillbillypharmacist: lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Or they can choose not to accept federal money. Which, y'know, would be the responsible way to go.

I am specifically talking about companies that will be replacing the failures in upper management. How will they be able to compete with companies that don't have a cap for top talent? Who in their right mind will take that job, when given a much better option?

This should be a model for all federal employment regulation. Federal OSHA, for example, should only have jurisdiction over work on federal contracts.

lrosu79: hillbillypharmacist: lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Or they can choose not to accept federal money. Which, y'know, would be the responsible way to go.

I am specifically talking about companies that will be replacing the failures in upper management. How will they be able to compete with companies that don't have a cap for top talent? Who in their right mind will take that job, when given a much better option?

Guess they'll have to settle for their piddling $400,000 salaries (at least that's what TFA says).

lrosu79: I am specifically talking about companies that will be replacing the failures in upper management. How will they be able to compete with companies that don't have a cap for top talent? Who in their right mind will take that job, when given a much better option?

Well, they could replace them by NOT ACCEPTING FEDERAL MONEY ANYMORE and then they can pay whatever they choose.

hillbillypharmacist: Or they can choose not to accept federal money.

Or there should even be any federal money offered. Even better.

Here's a quiz!

What do you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government?

lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Yeah, exactly.

Those people will just say "fark it!" and take a minimum-wage job. That's what'll happen.

Dancin_In_Anson: What do you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government?

Bush-onomics?

Dancin_In_Anson: hillbillypharmacist: Or they can choose not to accept federal money.

Or there should even be any federal money offered. Even better.

Here's a quiz!

What do you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government?

well, i'll guess that makes bush a communist then, right? your best buddy, bush... a communist?

BritneysSpeculum: Bush-onomics?

Dang, beat me to the punchline.

FlashHarry: well, i'll guess that makes bush a communist Socialist then, right?

FTFY

So it's not any federal money, just bailout money they are talking about, sounds okay to me.

The Onanist: FlashHarry: well, i'll guess that makes bush a communist Socialist then, right?

FTFY

whoops. my bad. i know how much bush loves to redistribute wealth. he just likes to redistribute it from the poor to the rich.

BuckTurgidson: lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Yeah, exactly.

Those people will just say "fark it!" and take a minimum-wage job. That's what'll happen.

When you can make 4-5x that amount at another company, whats the point of working for one with a cap. This will lead to potentially less experienced and qualified management at the already struggling company. I mean why stop there, why not have the government appoint the officers of the company. At what point do we draw the line? I understand imposing a standard of accountability with regards to spending the funds appropriately, but this goes a bit too far.

There should have been no money handed out to begin with.

I watched the Senator's speech on this and I agree with it 100%. As to the "nobody qualified will take the job" BS, I have a solution. Pay them 400K/yr. with the stipulation that they get a sizable bonus upon getting the company off of govt. welfare. The faster they get the company off of welfare, the larger the bonus.

I like the spirit, but also agree with lrosu79.

Maybe the additional compensation could be delayed and/or conditioned.

supek: I watched the Senator's speech on this and I agree with it 100%. As to the "nobody qualified will take the job" BS, I have a solution. Pay them 400K/yr. with the stipulation that they get a sizable bonus upon getting the company off of govt. welfare. The faster they get the company off of welfare, the larger the bonus.

Hey, now that's an idea everyone can get behind.

lrosu79: I am specifically talking about companies that will be replacing the failures in upper management. How will they be able to compete with companies that don't have a cap for top talent? Who in their right mind will take that job, when given a much better option?

Companies that pay millions or even billions of dollars to their executives are going to be a thing of the past in the very near future. These companies that are forced to be frugal with their upper pay scales are going to be able to compete better in the market place than their competitors who are paying their execs 100x as much as they are.

Imagining that these execs somehow earned the hundred million dollar salaries and bonuses that they were given by some special skills or talents that they had is magical thinking. They create virtual wealth out of accounting acrobatics... there was no real money backing up 85% of the deals that they were making. And that had a multiplicative effect on the market when the sub-prime bubble burst.

And the financial institutions that were paying out these huge sums were doing it not because they were rewarding performance, but because multi-million dollar executives were a mark of prestige. It was thought at the time that a financial institution that is able to support a Billion dollar executive payroll must be a strong institution to be able to afford them all, and it attracted rich, powerful customers.

But it was all a lot of smoke and mirrors... and the idea that they need to pay that much is nothing but an illusion.

Seems reasonable to me, there are plenty of stipulations that are involved when getting government contracts, i don't see a problem with a salary cap if my tax dollars are paying the salary directly.

BritneysSpeculum: Bush-onomics?

FlashHarry: communist

Wrong on all three counts...You seem to forget who is currently in office and dictating how a privately owned company is to compensate...

Want to try again?

hillbillypharmacist: Hey, now that's an idea everyone can get behind.

The better you perform, the more money you make. What a concept!

lrosu79: There should have been no money handed out to begin with.

So much THIS.

Dancin_In_Anson: You seem to forget who is currently in office and dictating how a privately owned company is to compensate...

...with public money.

Dancin_In_Anson: Wrong on all three counts...You seem to forget who is currently in office and dictating how a privately owned company is to compensate...

When you take federal funds, the feds have a right to dictate. If corporations don't have the balls to say no, they deserve what they get. I'm surprised at you, supporting the welfare queens of the private sector. I expect better.

hillbillypharmacist: supek: I watched the Senator's speech on this and I agree with it 100%. As to the "nobody qualified will take the job" BS, I have a solution. Pay them 400K/yr. with the stipulation that they get a sizable bonus upon getting the company off of govt. welfare. The faster they get the company off of welfare, the larger the bonus.

Hey, now that's an idea everyone can get behind.

Or they can give the executives stock options that mature on the day that the last cent is paid back to the government. Right there they have incentive to make the company profitable and stable, while at the same time weaning them off the government tit.

lrosu79: hillbillypharmacist: lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

Or they can choose not to accept federal money. Which, y'know, would be the responsible way to go.

I am specifically talking about companies that will be replacing the failures in upper management. How will they be able to compete with companies that don't have a cap for top talent? Who in their right mind will take that job, when given a much better option?

The problem is that "top talent" got us into this bullshiat to begin with, along with the thinking that the absolute best business sense is to give high-ranking executives more money than god.

Code_Archeologist: Or they can give the executives stock options that mature on the day that the last cent is paid back to the government. Right there they have incentive to make the company profitable and stable, while at the same time weaning them off the government tit.

Even better.

Lionel Mandrake: ...with public money

How much stock did they purchase?

hillbillypharmacist: When you take federal funds, the feds have a right to dictate

We had a little discussion about how much oversight was in TARP 1...I think the answer was "little to none". In other words they were given a sack of money an that was that.

Which takes us back to our Econ 101 question of the day...


Dancin_In_Anson: What do you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government?

Dancin_In_Anson: BritneysSpeculum: Bush-onomics?

FlashHarry: communist

Wrong on all three counts...You seem to forget who is currently in office and dictating how a privately owned company is to compensate...

Want to try again?

No. The TARP bailout legislation, signed by Bush included provisions that was to enable the Treasury to set compensation limits for financial companies that get federal money. Hence bush-o-nomics

Code_Archeologist: Or they can give the executives stock options that mature on the day that the last cent is paid back to the government. Right there they have incentive to make the company profitable and stable, while at the same time weaning them off the government tit.

That would work too. Hell we don't need the government, Farkers solved the problem in under ten minutes!

Dancin_In_Anson: Dancin_In_Anson: What do you call an economic system where the means of production are privately owned but controlled by government?

A regulated market. It's been the case in this country for decades. Capping the top pay for uber-executives in companies that TAKE PUBLIC MONEY isn't going to be the last step that sends us down the slope to communism.

Dancin_In_Anson: We had a little discussion about how much oversight was in TARP 1...I think the answer was "little to none". In other words they were given a sack of money an that was that.

I know, it was one of the nastiest farces the US government, with Bush at the helm, has propagated on our nation.

Which takes us back to our Econ 101 question of the day...

Blow it out your ass, teach. Nobody's buying what you're selling.

supek: That would work too. Hell we don't need the government, Farkers solved the problem in under ten minutes!

Well, we still need the government to implement it.

Dancin_In_Anson: You seem to forget who is currently in office and dictating how a privately owned company is to compensate...

You seem to forget that these companies don't have to take federal dollars.

Want to try again?

BritneysSpeculum: No. The TARP bailout legislation, signed by Bush included provisions that was to enable the Treasury to set compensation limits for financial companies that get federal money. Hence bush-o-nomics

Why just yesterday, I was told that Bush reamed TARP1 down the throats of an unsuspecting and completely innocent Congress and that's why this was happening...To wit:P

hillbillypharmacist: I know, it was one of the nastiest farces the US government, with Bush at the helm, has propagated on our nation.

Y'all need to get your Bush blame straight.


Blow it out your ass, teach. Nobody's buying what you're selling.

Oh come on. You can do it!

An economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, ******* economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

Why be upset by increased regulation of how tax payer dollar are spent, is that something they should be doing.

I don't know if the bailout should have gone through or not, I'd sure hate to watch banks fold completely with no means to stay up, seems that would cause more long term damage that would be far more difficult to get out of, but either way, its done, can't change it now.

If a company wants to get "free" federal dollars, they should be forced to use it in a way that allows the money to fix the problem, not pay worthless people enormous salaries or for crazy parties with hookers and blow.

If they don't want to abide by the rules, fine, they can't play ball.

Once they go off federal dollars they can change their setup, but if they fall back in, then they should let them go bankrupt.

You get once chance, you screw it up, you go down with the ship.

jbc: You seem to forget that these companies don't have to take federal dollars.

No they don't and the Fed doesn't have to (and shouldn't) give them one red cent.

burndtdan: lrosu79: So basically no experienced, currently well compensated individuals will want to work as upper management at these companies. This should end well.

experienced in what? failing to the tune of tens of billions of dollars? darn, how will things go on without them?

Fair enough. Now, let's say a company has been run poorly and needs a federal bailout, and decides to can the executives who led it down that path. What kind of compensation package are you planning to put together under these guidelines to attract executives with track records of success?

Mixed

Dancin_In_Anson: An economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, ******* economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

Is there a country like that existing today?

I've got a question for you:
Who is responsible for the addiction- the pusher, or the addict?

Dancin_In_Anson: Why just yesterday, I was told that Bush reamed TARP1 down the throats of an unsuspecting and completely innocent Congress and that's why this was happening...To wit:P

??? So you agree with me then?

Dancin_In_Anson: Oh come on. You can do it!

An economy where the government exerts strong directive influence, and effectively controls production and allocation of resources. In general, apart from the nationalizations of some industries, ******* economies were based on private property and private initiative, but these were contingent upon service to the state.

And I told you. The situation (not what you're trying to corral people into saying) is a regulated market. We've had it for decades, and capping executive salaries on companies that accept public money is not going to push us over the edge into "socialism" or "communism."

This isn't Obama's 5 year plan, for fark's sake. This isn't the government dictating all policies of production or distribution. This is a salary cap for people who take taxpayer money. Jesus Christ.

Nabb1
Simple, considering the current problems:

Company: Would you like a job?

Unemployed Executive: Yes,

Company: Great, 400k top compensation

Unemployed Executive: Can I have more?

Company: If you can get our balance sheet in the black and we don't have to live off of corporate welfare.

Unemployed Executive: I don't have enough confidence to work for that little money, i really thing I should be paid enough so that when I have to quit out shame in two months, i won't need to find another job immediately to pay for my 7 luxury cars, and the 4 nannies i need so my unemployed 3rd wife can go shopping with all the money you are wasting, I mean, paying me.

Company: Next!

Every American company should have a wage maximum.