If it means it forces the buisness to pay marginal workers livable wages than I would all for it.

 

No, it means they'll outsource their maintenance staff to an outside company if it's a loophole. Then Congress will close that one and they'll find another. The banks and major corporations have financiers, consultants and attorneys a whole lot smarter and better at this than you, me, and pretty much all the regulators in Washington working at this... they'll win. They found the loopholes when Congress tried to cap pay before and they'll find a way again. Punitive regulations might make us feel better, but it won't get us out of this.

 

Does everyone in America deserve a liveable wage? Absolutely. Will capping executive pay help anyone get any closer to that wage? No.

Who should control the salaries of these CEOs? Have you seen what they make? I would go so far as to say what they make is sinful. Who approves the salary - BOD not share holders. My IRA companies have never asked me how much we should pay the CEO. The BOD approves raises to the CEO and he approves bonuses to them, where is there any regulation.

 

The free-market is amoral - someone has to regulate. These guys are not getting paid what they are "worth". Heck fire no one is WORTH that much, especially given the shape these businesses are in. Why aren't the shareholders and BODs fining the CEOs for poor work?

 

Someone is actually WORTH 20 or 30 million a year?? Please.

 

Some might go as far to say that envy of their salaries could be as equally sinful. Which is worse, greed or envy? Just a thought.

Personally, (and I know this is contrary to 99% of the other opinions in this forum) I don't think Obama, or anyone in government wants to permanantly control private business. What I d think is that Obama is trying to ensure good stewardship of taxpayer monies. Personally, I'm glad someone is taking steps to limit what can be done with the bailout money. I didn't want it approved in the first place, but it was. Now, I want to see some restrictions, so that this money is an investment, and not a waste. If these businesses would have practiced this on their own, they wouldn't be in line with their hand out. There simply must be some restrictions. I personally feel that without restriction, there will be an ever-increasing line of industries who allow businesses to fail then turn to the government to get the hook up. Everyone thinks welfare is bad...corporate welfare would be far, FAR worse.

 

I don't think they consciously want to control private business. It just seems like once the precedent is set, it becomes much easier to keep trucking on. I think we are seeing that with the bailouts right now. For this to have a shot in hell of working, I don't think you should put a flat cap on executive salaries. It doesn't seem like the logical thing to do and it allows too much government control into the private sector. The sad part is, the more I think about this, the more I realize just how bad of an idea the bail outs were.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the businesses should have fixed this on their own and that corporate welfare is AWFUL. No arguments from me there.

 

There are those that do want to control private businesses.

 

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template

 

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

 

“There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today.

 

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

Some might go as far to say that envy of their salaries could be as equally sinful. Which is worse, greed or envy? Just a thought.

 

I don't understand your point. Because someone envies a sinful salary does not make the salary any less sinful.

 

As to the other poster, if they outsource their cleaning to another company and that company also has CEO pay tied to the lowest employee pay then it is still a good thing. No need to CAP the pay that is not what I suggested. You can pay the CEO as much as you want, just tie it to the man/woman cleaning the floors.

 

We don't really value "work" in this country, we value wealth. Work is what the person cleaning up does. Wealth is Paris Hilton.

I don't understand your point. Because someone envies a sinful salary does not make the salary any less sinful.

 

As to the other poster, if they outsource their cleaning to another company and that company also has CEO pay tied to the lowest employee pay then it is still a good thing. No need to CAP the pay that is not what I suggested. You can pay the CEO as much as you want, just tie it to the man/woman cleaning the floors.

 

We don't really value "work" in this country, we value wealth. Work is what the person cleaning up does. Wealth is Paris Hilton.

 

Where would you cut off governments role in private business? You have stated that you support them dictating salaries to one degree or another, what else would you have them control? Also, have you ever run a business? Just interested in where you are coming from.

 

Thanks,

Where would you cut off governments role in private business? You have stated that you support them dictating salaries to one degree or another, what else would you have them control? Also, have you ever run a business? Just interested in where you are coming from.

 

Thanks,

 

I was just playing along . . . I think the BODs should tie the pay, of course that might affect their pay as well so it is never going to happen.

 

The only thing I think the government should dictate is a living wage - too methat means, a person working 37.5 hours a week should be able to take home enough pay to support 2 people. i.e. single mom and kid or single dad. 2 people working should be able to easily support a family or four regardless of the type of work they do. We should value work that much.

acemona, RM, RowdyRed, and a few others are going to be a bit disappointed! (P.S. I just realized that this article does not specifically mention executive pay in companies receiving bailout money- has this been addressed/finalized by the Obama administration? I haven't heard)

 

Geithner: No caps on pay for corporate executives

Who said they couldn't do that?

 

They can reject the easy money from the government and try their luck in the free market with the best and brightest.

 

That is a good option for them.

 

But if they want the taxpayers to come in and bail them out of their mistakes than it comes with a price FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.

 

I see your point and agree to an extent.

 

However, I don't like the precedent it sets. It seems like another few feet down the slippery slope to me...