Obama new cause for poverty in America?

[Zevico]

I'll admit I didn't read 95% of the posts....honestly whats the point.

I am just spit balling here, but isn't it work and be paid? So Obama wants to cut 90% of the best 25 employees from...so they work hard and not get paid. Liberal thinking is that if someone works hard for x amount of years and eventually get to ^ positions. After obtaining this from your hard work and dedication you recieve $$$ for salary. Now the government wants to say you can't have $$$ but only $. And why? What is the justification? Beacuse consumers buy the products? Because they are successful? Because of all the money they make from whatever business they do makes them evil, even if said business is a major commodity? Why? What exactly justifies the government telling Mr. Jones who is 74 and worked for decade after decade to become CFO of Big Bucks Merchants that he does not deserve to make 6 or 7 figures a year?

[Insert masturbatory post about how much zakudl and his real-life idiot counterparts suck here.]

[zakubandit]

Really? Zevico, kill yourself. If you want to get at me come with bigger guns. DaShi and KH could teach you something about getting me worked up. You just got a big ass FAIL slapped right on your forehead.

[MRT144]

OTOH, they've provided my dad with many, many years of the kind of salaries Obama wants to tax.

Defined-benefit plans

You've always been a pampered smart-ass.

[Straybow]

[Q=Zkribbler;5696587]If they're not responsible for the firms profits and losses, they shouldn't be getting the big salaries. If they ARE responsible for profits and losses, then because there are big losses, they still shouldn't be getting big salaries.[/Q] KH took the bad cop line, I'll try the good cop line of gently explaining it.

Econ 101: the employees are responsible for bringing in income. The managers are responsible for making sure that income results in a reasonable amount of profit. In most cases, the departments that incur expenses are not the same as the departments that bring money in. If you blindly cut everyone's compensation and income-producers leave, then you waste weeks or months sorting through applicants and then bringing the chosen replacement up to the level of the one replaced. You will probably end up hurting the company more than the "savings" garnered from withholding compensation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Somewhat related:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/27aig.html?hp

Maurice R. Greenberg, who built the American International Group into an insurance behemoth with an impenetrable maze of on- and offshore companies, is at it again.

Even as he has been lambasting the government for its handling of A.I.G. after its near collapse, Mr. Greenberg has been quietly building up a family of insurance companies that could compete with A.I.G. To fill the ranks of his venture, C.V. Starr & Company, he has been hiring some people he once employed.

Now, Mr. Greenberg may have received some unintended assistance from the United States Treasury. Just last week, the Treasury severely limited pay at A.I.G. and other companies that were bailed out by taxpayers. That may hasten the exodus of A.I.G.’s talent, sending more refugees into Mr. Greenberg’s arms, since C. V. Starr is free to pay whatever it wants.

People who work in the industry say that if he is already luring A.I.G.’s people, he may soon be siphoning off its business and, therefore, its means to repay its debt to the government.

But executive pay caps for bailed out firms are a good thing, right!!

[DinoDoc]

Somewhat related:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/business/27aig.html?hp

People who work in the industry say that if he is already luring A.I.G.’s people, he may soon be siphoning off its business and, therefore, its means to repay its debt to the government.

But executive pay caps for bailed out firms are a good thing, right!!

Thank you!

[Saras]

Thank you!

the next logical step is a ban for employees of bailed out entities to quit their jobs.

Indentured servitude

[Kitschum]

Let them get whatever pay they can. Instead they should just do like in China and every few years shoot a couple of them, like say 10%. Pour encourager, etc.

[zakubandit]

Kitschum, unless you have ever set foot in China don't talk ****. Working here I can easily say the Chinese have a far better work ethic than Americans do. They may not have a real grasp for common sense, handling conflict, or aggressive behavior...but they dedicate their entire days to work, even work late without overtime pay (or being paid at all for that matter), and they get their jobs done and usually the job above them too.

Anyways, I understand the government believes that since they loaned our money to the businesses that the businesses in turn should be listening to them (actually us). BUT the flaw in that is that this is a free country, a republic, not a socialist/communist state where the government will dictate corporate actions. Now I could say it would be ok for maybe 1 liaison from the government to be appointed to the board of a company (non-voting member) in order to monitor, report, and advise....but limited to that capacity. Giving the government authority to tell corporations that you will not pay these people over this much, or you will not hire this many people, or you cannot fire this many people....that is not freedom, that is dictation. Putting a cap on salaries, wrong, and as was stated would lead to quitting. I can guaran-damn-tee it that if some politician who has never worked in my company is going to tell me I cannot make over a certain amount that I am going to quit and go to a company that I can make as much as I can.

We are heading in the wrong direction from freedom and democratic control is not going to help get us any closer.