Selective Salary Caps.

[boedicca]

It won't work.

 

[amrchaos]

You want to know who idea it was?

I will tell you whose idea it was:Wage jealous bastards. Let them make a couple of million dollars a year and have someone else come in and say "No no--don't you think you could share that with the others" and see how that feels!!

Even worst, let them take that extra money and divide it among the workers of some company, it may not add up to a penny!!

I think I said this when the left was complaining about bonuses to the bankers:
"Do not worry about wages!! The bottomline is results!"
No company can survive if it throws away money like water.

 

[FrankieGA]

Which brings the point, Why not let them fail? If there business practices are such that a designation of failure, whether it be long or short term, let them fail. There are other companies out there that are run soundly and above board that would be then given the opportunity to grow and mature into a larger business. Any business that is "TOO BIG TO FAIL" is going to fail eventually, just like the Gov't is "TOO BIG TO FAIL". Small local business/gov't is easier to manage and control by its employees/citizens

 

[Care4all]

But if they did not need it, and they paid it back as you stated Boe, then they would not be forced to have a cap on the ceo salary...because they paid back the money borrowed already....? Therefore they are no longer under the gvt's thumb, right?

This is why the cap of $500k is A GOOD THING....it is an incentive for ceo's not to take risks that the gvt is going to have to bail them out of....if they want their millions in salary, then don't be incompetent when you run the too big to fail company you are getting paid millions to do....

That's not what is being proposed - they are trying to sweep all of them under this.

The $500K cap is not a good thing. Past controls on exec comp caused compensation packages to be heavily weighted towards stock options. Much of the big increase in pay that is decried is due to option gains - which encouraged a focus on short term strategies to pump up the stock price.

A Cap will just result in alternate forms of comp to make up the difference which, like all such attempts at control, will have Unintended Consequences.

The real solution is to get rid of the Too Big Too Fail Concept, let companies experience the results of their risk taking, and keep government out of it.

from my understanding of the term too big to fail, is that it is NOT the company that is too big to fail because that company will be hurt, it is too big to fail because ALL OF INNOCENT Americans will be hurt by it.

The ONLY way to correct, "too big to fail" so that these companies do not bring the rest of America down with their poor decisions, is with regulation reform...

I have not read the article yet, is the cap including all other compensation or only on salary? Also, was there not already legislation passed by congress that capped their incentive compensation such as stock options as well?

No one capped ceo salaries previously and they STILL MOVED towards the majority of their pay coming from their stock options, why are you blaming the gvt for this? The private sector themselves chose to pay themselves in that manner, the short term profit manner instead of running a business soundly and for long term...

 

[Againsheila]

I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.

I wonder who's idea this was?

I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.

Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.

Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.

Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?

Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.

Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.

I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.

 

[Jarhead]

I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.

I wonder who's idea this was?

I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.

Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.

Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.

Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?

Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.

Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.

I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.

And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?

Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?

Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?

Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.

Putting aside the rhetoric;

Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.

A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.

The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.

 

[DiamondDave]

I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.

I wonder who's idea this was?

I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.

Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.

Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.

Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?

Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.

Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.

I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.

But do you not see that it is a power grab added to an initial power grab....? A series of events that should have never started in the first place

 

[boedicca]

from my understanding of the term too big to fail, is that it is NOT the company that is too big to fail because that company will be hurt, it is too big to fail because ALL OF INNOCENT Americans will be hurt by it.

The ONLY way to correct, "too big to fail" so that these companies do not bring the rest of America down with their poor decisions, is with regulation reform...

I have not read the article yet, is the cap including all other compensation or only on salary? Also, was there not already legislation passed by congress that capped their incentive compensation such as stock options as well?

No one capped ceo salaries previously and they STILL MOVED towards the majority of their pay coming from their stock options, why are you blaming the gvt for this? The private sector themselves chose to pay themselves in that manner, the short term profit manner instead of running a business soundly and for long term...

Considering that 15M people are out of work because the government is pouring taxpayer money into Too Big Too Fail Banks, and then borrowing it back, it can easily be argued that bailing them out has hurt more people than have been protected.

In reality, the only people who are helped are the politically connected, politicians themselves, and people whose jobs are not economically justified - at the expense of the rest of us.

 

[Againsheila]

I was thinking today about the $500K ceiling that Democrats want to put on CEOs earnings.

I wonder who's idea this was?

I also wonder why it's confined to only CEOs. Why not Hollywood actors. Why not sports athletes as well.

Some CEOs do make alot of money...but for someone on the "A" List in Hollywood they demand $20 million a picture.

Some basketball players are signing $100 million contracts. It seems that each time we hear about one it's the highest in history.

Why is it that CEOs are the only people being singled out? Why not actors and athletes too?

Do you think Obama is gonna demand that Tim Duncan spread the wealth...give that money to the needy....only earn $500k? Figure the odds on that.

Personally I think it's a sneaky form of racism....but that's just me.

I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.

And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?

Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?

Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?

Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.

Putting aside the rhetoric;

Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.

A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.

The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.

And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.

 

[DiamondDave]

I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.

And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?

Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?

Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?

Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.

Putting aside the rhetoric;

Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.

A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.

The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.

And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.

Only if she negotiates that for herself.... and if it is not offered... she has the freedom to go elsewhere.... it is not OWED to her at all ( along the same lines, it is not inherently DESERVED).... it can be offered if indeed those who make the business decisions have the willingness to have that as compensation incentive

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.

And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?

Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?

Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?

Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.

Putting aside the rhetoric;

Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.

A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.

The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.

And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.

So you are saying that if he/she does her job correectly, she warrants more than if she doesnt?

If she doesnt do it correctly, she deserves to lose the job.

Seems you prefer rewarding those that do what is expected as opposed to punish those that do not do what is expected.

Interesting.

 

[Againsheila]

And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?

Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?

Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?

Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.

Putting aside the rhetoric;

Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.

A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.

The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.

And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.

Only if she negotiates that for herself.... and if it is not offered... she has the freedom to go elsewhere.... it is not OWED to her at all ( along the same lines, it is not inherently DESERVED).... it can be offered if indeed those who make the business decisions have the willingness to have that as compensation incentive

She earns it, she deserves it, therefore it is owed to here, the fact that they are too greedy to give her her share of the profits is what is wrong with American values today.

 

[Jarhead]

I'm not sure but I think it's only for those corporations that owe the government bailout money. I think it's a good idea, and I have no problem with extending it to athletes and actors and everyone else. We have a minimum wage that doesn't even provide a roof over your head, maybe if we have a maximum wage, the lower wage workers will be able to get a bigger piece of the pie.

And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?

Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?

Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?

Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.

Putting aside the rhetoric;

Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.

A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.

The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.

And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.

She does NOT help to create the profits. She is hired to present the firm in a way that is approipriate and does not LOSE business.

If she DOES end up creating profits; perhaps by going above and beyond her responsibilities by, on her own, making travel arrangements for a prospective client, then I guarantee you one thing; the boss will give her a raise before letting her leave for a better salary. And if he does not give her that raise? That is his decision to let talent leave; and if it does not create a loss for him? Then he made a smart business decision to let her leave.

 

[Againsheila]

And exactly how do you distinguish betweeen those that deserve a bigger peice of the pie and those that don't?

Where would be the incentive to jump to the next level, if the next level comes with longer hours, but only a moderate increase in pay?

Where would be the incentive be to go off on your own and risk your life savings to start up a company if you knew that you would make less at the beginning (as all new company owners do) and even when you start to make more than you were 5 years back, you wont be able to make up the loss that you incurred compared to what you would have been making for those 5 years if you stayed where you were?

Sorry. I disagree. People have choices. If thy do not like the salary offered, they should not take the job. Or take the job, enhance your skill set and look for a btter paying job.

Putting aside the rhetoric;

Company owners pay for talent. Compay owners rarely let their own greed get in the way of paying talent what they deserve with the alternative being losing the talent.

A receptionist gets what a receptrionist gets. The job does not warrant any higher salary REGRDLESS of how much money the company makes.

The profit can be 100K or 1 million. Either way, the receptionist can answer just so many calls a day.

And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.

So you are saying that if he/she does her job correectly, she warrants more than if she doesnt?

If she doesnt do it correctly, she deserves to lose the job.

Seems you prefer rewarding those that do what is expected as opposed to punish those that do not do what is expected.

Interesting.

You can do the job, or you can do the job great, some are better at jobs than others. Do you honestly think all teachers deserve the same pay?

I worked the concession stand as a volunteer the other night for Center stage. I did better than most as I got us some extra donations. Did my friend do the job wrong because she didn't get the donations? No. She did exactly as she was suppose to, I simply did better and convinced people to give up a couple of bucks to a good charity.

You can have a receptions who simply answers the phone, or you can have one that communicates with your potential clients and possibly makes contacts for you...doesn't mean one is doing their job wrong, only that the other is doing their job better. The difference is in the amount of the profit they deserve, which you will deny either of them because they are simply a receptionist and you are greedy with your profits.

 

[Jarhead]

And the way she answers those calls makes money for the company and can be the difference between getting a contract or a new customer and losing that contract or customer. She helps create the profits, she deserves a share of them.

Only if she negotiates that for herself.... and if it is not offered... she has the freedom to go elsewhere.... it is not OWED to her at all ( along the same lines, it is not inherently DESERVED).... it can be offered if indeed those who make the business decisions have the willingness to have that as compensation incentive

She earns it, she deserves it, therefore it is owed to here, the fact that they are too greedy to give her her share of the profits is what is wrong with American values today.

She earns it? She earns the salary she accepts. She does more than what was expected of her and does not get compensated for it? She can get another job.

I do not see where you are going with this. You are not supporting a point. You are simply stating an ideology.

 

[Againsheila]

Only if she negotiates that for herself.... and if it is not offered... she has the freedom to go elsewhere.... it is not OWED to her at all ( along the same lines, it is not inherently DESERVED).... it can be offered if indeed those who make the business decisions have the willingness to have that as compensation incentive

She earns it, she deserves it, therefore it is owed to here, the fact that they are too greedy to give her her share of the profits is what is wrong with American values today.

She earns it? She earns the salary she accepts. She does more than what was expected of her and does not get compensated for it? She can get another job.

I do not see where you are going with this. You are not supporting a point. You are simply stating an ideology.

Which supports the point that while the pie has gotten bigger, the piece of the pie given to the lowest paid workers has gotten smaller and the piece given to the highest paid workers has gotten bigger. No country can long sustain such a huge income gap. Remember the French Revolution?

 

[Jarhead]

She earns it, she deserves it, therefore it is owed to here, the fact that they are too greedy to give her her share of the profits is what is wrong with American values today.

She earns it? She earns the salary she accepts. She does more than what was expected of her and does not get compensated for it? She can get another job.

I do not see where you are going with this. You are not supporting a point. You are simply stating an ideology.

Which supports the point that while the pie has gotten bigger, the piece of the pie given to the lowest paid workers has gotten smaller and the piece given to the highest paid workers has gotten bigger. No country can long sustain such a huge income gap. Remember the French Revolution?

Now you are no longer stating an ideology, you are supporting a point and I appreciate it.

However, I do not agree with it.

You seem to have ignored the reality. During great times, yes, such will happen. During down times? The gap decreases.

Sure, you can claim that business owners lay off during down times. Sure they do. To save their company, not to maximize the money in their pocket. Most hang on as long as they can without laying off personnel that are required to keep the company going.

I for one have not taken a dime out of my company for over 6 months. Likewise, I have not laid off as I will need these people when times get better and they are "talent" as they always went above and beyond.

They have become indespensible and I would prefer not making nmoney over losing them.

They earned it.

THAT is how business owners think.

And in the meantime, you are right. The gap between me and my receptionists has increased dramatically. They both are making 30K a year more than I am now.

I suggest you think like a business owner. You will find you are less likely to fall for the rhetoric out there.

 

[FrankieGA]

And AgainSheila how can you think that just because you work somewhere means you "Deserve" anything. Salary is a performance based system, not a system that just says oh well she is doing a job so we should give her a raise, or profits as you call them. Entitlement is not what gets you anywhere.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at how pathetic people have become to think they Deserve anything. They put their lives on the line to create a better place for man to live and prosper with their abilities leading the way.

 

[Jarhead]

And AgainSheila how can you think that just because you work somewhere means you "Deserve" anything. Salary is a performance based system, not a system that just says oh well she is doing a job so we should give her a raise, or profits as you call them. Entitlement is not what gets you anywhere.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at how pathetic people have become to think they Deserve anything. They put their lives on the line to create a better place for man to live and prosper with their abilities leading the way.

That is most certainly a problem nowadays.

People do not understand that they can make themselves indispensible to an employer.

Or they can simply do the job as was expected.

It is their choice.

Like I always say. There are two types of employees:\

1) One that uses 6 inches of snow on the ground as an excuse to not go to work

2) One that does whatever is necessary to find a way to get to work when there is 6 inches of snow on the ground.

Who do you think will get a bigger raise? Who do you think will be the first to be laid off?

 

[Againsheila]

And AgainSheila how can you think that just because you work somewhere means you "Deserve" anything. Salary is a performance based system, not a system that just says oh well she is doing a job so we should give her a raise, or profits as you call them. Entitlement is not what gets you anywhere.

Our Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at how pathetic people have become to think they Deserve anything. They put their lives on the line to create a better place for man to live and prosper with their abilities leading the way.

Our founding fathers were smugglers and business men who put their lives on the line for profit. The Boston Tea Party was about taxes only in the sense that it was too low on the legal tea from England which made it cheaper to buy the legal tea than the tea our founders smuggled in. You are right, they would be rolling in their graves they were as greedy as the CEOs out there that have sent our jobs overseas and brought in immigrants to do the jobs we have left.

If immigration were at 1960 levels, right now we'd have high paying jobs for the low end workers because of supply and demand. Americans limited their birthrate to less than replacement value, while immigrants and first generation immigrants have 7.5 kids per family.

When our population reached 200 million, that 200 millionth baby made headlines across the nation. When our population reached 300 million it was virtually ignored. Why? Because the chances that that child was born to illegal immigrants was more than 70%.