Some other thoughts:
In a free market, each individual is selling their skills on the open market to the highest bidder. Individuals with the best skills are paid the highest in their profession. If given multiple job offers who would accept the lowest one? Very few.
It seems to me that what bothers most people is that the limit is not predetermined, but set by the highest bidder. Perhaps their pay should be tied to what profits their companies make - that I agree with. But that should be up to the company and not the Gov't. A free market will correct the imbalances if the Gov't didn't bail them out. Those companies where the compensation was out of line would all be gone, like Chrysler, GM and some of the banks.

What about professional athletes, movie stars and other entertainers? Should Oprah make a gazillion dollars to sit her ass n a couch and talk? How about an actor or actress that makes $10-20 million per movie or a singer that makes a deal with a company for a tour? Look at Michael Jackson's rumored $400 million deal. That is insane.

You are correct - Perhaps you noticed - regulation is not real high on my list. A safety net is one thing, a ceiling is whole different thing.

Bullshit: you want it one way but not another.

A ceiling IS a safety net for the lower paid employees.

Never mind, this is going to turn into another "don't read a word they say just argue a lot" bunch of crap.

And what the fuck, for someone who didn't want to discuss living wages why are you bringing up such freaks of nature as Oprah and Michael? Reeaacccchhhhhhinggggg...

I agree that there are some valid arguments supporting pay limits. I am worried about a precedent being set for the Govt. to limit compensation for anyone for any reason.
A free market will self correct and all those people would be outta work right now and their stocks and compensation would be worth zero. Thats what should have happened, IMO.

The best of intentions to limit the top so that the middle or bottom can share more of the pie is a failed theory. I think :)

I don't think it's so much about sharing the pie, I think it's about letting the lower earners keep the crusty crumbs they're getting.

My apologies to Pie. ;)

Dammit, Shawnee, I am on a diet and now you are making me want a pop-tart!

And pie!

oh ok. I'll just take what politicians say at face value then.

So, when presented with a plan that you do not like, and when given arguments as to why you could be incorrect, the best response is to say "I don't believe them anyway"?

Really, you must get over your PTSD from 8 years of abuse and lies at the hands of the Bush administration.

Sorry to channel tw, but if it walks like a duck...

;)

No, but read what they say and hold them to it, instead of railing against what you think they secretly intend to do.

In this case, the existing laws already give them the power, but they are trying to figure out how to write rules that will prevent the financial segment from returning to business as usual when the economy recovers, without impeding that recovery.
After all, the same people will be running the financial segment, people that have been steeped in a culture of greed, and to hell with sound practices/stockholders/country.

If you leave your kid alone and he burns half the house down, next time you go out you sure as hell better get a baby sitter.

...or at the very least hide the fucking matches this time.

Sorry you feel that way S123 - If that is all you got out of what I posted, then we'll agree to disagree.
Perhaps you could look at it and just trust them cuz they say its all good. I'm A LOT more skeptical than that. I have learned NOT to trust any politician nor what they say - especially over the last 8 years and beyond.
For examples - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." or take your pick of the last five stories about torture that Pelosi has trotted out, just to mention a couple - there are hundreds more from the R's too.

I did not say a damn thing about believing them or trusting them. You are turning your initial argument that basically says that any kind of oversight over top pay wages is not right into "well, I don't believe them. Hmmmph."

I did not fuck that woman is a far cry from WMDs though, while you're worrying about lies.

My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
Additionally, I did not change my argument at all. Bruce quoted specific text and I responded to him.

I also said:
I never made any accusation towards you. Sheesh - you ARE channeling tw

But minimum wage is OK. Explain to me again the difference, keeping in mind my points about rampant-running executives making 5 katrillion a year hurting the viability of the company, which hurts the tiny people.

When did this become a discussion about the minimum wage? I thought we were talking about the Gov't regulating the pay of financial CEO's. You brought up the minimum wage. The two are separate.

Are you suggesting that we eliminate the minimum wage?

No, I'm asking you to tell me why you think one is OK and not the other. What do you think is OK to regulate and what is not? The two are not separate; though I might find an angle you wouldn't have thought of, it is still very relevant and your arguments for one and against the other confuse me. Explain it to me again? Is it hard for you when anything other than the exact point at (your) hand is related to something else? Does this extrapolation dilute your argument (whatever that is, we're working on figuring that out) or just generally confuse you?

By the way, I'm not suggesting anything. Please re-read my first post on the matter.

First off, I never made an argument. (see above) Just a statement. I am not so comfortable with the Gov't setting limits on how much people can make. One issue is that setting this precedent at this time, signing it into law and making it a permanent thing is not something I think should happen. I opened that for discussion.

You brought the minimum wage into it. Then got insulting. I guess I'm just dense.

FWIW, I am fine with a minimum wage. You are saying that a maximum wage is the same (conceptually)as a minimum and on that we disagree.

I quoted my first post so you can see there was no argument - just a statement.

Never mind. Forget it. Brick walls are so boring after a while, and my head hurts.

I could present a timeline with a "you said" then "I said" but it's moot when you dance around things as you do.

But thanks for the enlightened debate. I learned so much about your side. :cool:

I don't have a side - thats your misconception. You are trying to pigeonhole me into a position that doesn't exist. I stated my initial reaction/opinion.

I agree about brick walls and closed minds, they get very tiresome. See there is some common ground.

You DO have a side: you don't think the government should put into place anything that limits the earnings of the CEOs. You said it yourself.

All I was trying to do was to get you to see another angle.

I see why debates here turn into flame wars. :yeldead:

uh ok, see pigeonhole comment.

What angle? And don't you dare mention the (minimum wage) again or I'll come to Ohiooooooo and make more idle threats!

C-man, you won't need to come to Ohio because I'm about to walk to PA and kick your ass. :)

Pigeonhole? You're kidding, right? I couldn't have cut and pasted more precisely. OK, for entertainment value, exact quotes from you:

Don't think outside the box, your brain might explode. ;)

Who is talkin minimum wage? :p

Goddammit classic. I asked you very simply: if the government shouldn't control wages how do you justify a minimum wage?

BITE ME.

Oh, and I never DENIED talking about the min wage, ya bonehead. I also made the connection in parts you did not quote.

It's pretty much the basis for my point that I will never get through your thick skull.

Oh fuggit, I'm going to say it: NO WONDER TW GETS ON YOUR CASE.

Wait, what? I thought you didn't have an argument.



:)

Remember this?

Remember this:

Your free market society didn't self-regulate very well by the way. Your boys fucked it all up. Sadly, the concept of free market society was conceived with a certain level of belief that people are basically ethical and not evil fucking bastards. :lol:

My point again, the purpose of imposing restrictions (jebus h cripes I can't believe I have to go through this again) is to ensure the VIABILITY OF THE COMPANY, SO PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS DON'T RUN INSTITUTION AFTER INSTITUTION INTO THE GROUND WHILE THE PEOPLE IN THE TRENCHES LOSE JOB AFTER JOB AND PANSY ASS GREEDY EXECS SAIL AWAY ON THEIR YACHT.

Don't give me your argument about "they worked harder they deserve to ruin companies" crap, either. Most of those guys are numnuts.

You really are being obtuse, and you're shit-stirring because you think it's funny and you can't say a damn thing about your point except "Yeah HUH."

You're lucky I like you. ;)

Yes I do and my response - - -
Perhaps it is the congress who stepped in and bailed them out who as you so aptly put it "fucked it all up."

And when did I EVER say that?

Bullshit. Bullshit. Oh, and bullshit.

It'll be hard to self-regulate or free market anything when we are all living in a ditch hoping the planes will come over and drop loads of rations.

Nope, the greedy fucking bastards fucked it up, the feds have to go in and re-regulate federally regulated business. Tried free rein, they'd rather ruin our country and fuck the rest of us. Feds just finally had to play the card, before your big finance boys fucked it up even worse.

That might have been another of the rampant right wing(nuts)ers. My apologies if by "stay out of their business" you don't mean let them run willy-nilly in waves of destruction.

And the question I'm asking is should that be done by the Gov't?

ok, nevermind, you win - you are way more pissed off than I am.
:notworthy

And the question I'm asking is should the government set a minimum wage? It should be up to the company owner to pay what they want, right? It is up to the individual whether or not to accept that wage, right?

THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG: explain to me how one is OK and not the other.

Don't give me another "yeah-huh" I might barf.

Oh you're a funny shit-stirring fucker. :lol:

Now, where's he at? :nadkick:

Thanks for the laughs, classic. That was fun. :)

Of course, she's only in a good mood if it's Mother's Day and a full moon.

I agree the government shouldn't be setting wage caps on any job except maybe the military and government employees. But, what they are talking about is how to rewrite the regulations for the financial sector, so that rewards are in line with performance and not screwing the pooch again.
You know, no more bonuses of millions for the people that are losing billions.
They don't need new laws to do that, the old laws, already on the books, give them that power.

I also think it's about time the stockholders had a bigger voice and the market analysts a smaller one.

The window of opportunity for a little Shawnee sunshine is quite small indeed. ;)

So Rick Wagoner should have stayed there protected by the MBA who are running GM into the ground? GM had no plans to fix itself until Obama finally forced Wagoner out. Only in the past month has GM had anything close to a solution. Only because Obama swung an axe.

No it should not be necessary. But appreciate how corrupt American business is especially where government in the 2000 protected the dumbest of them.

How many more AT&Ts should America suffer simultaneously before executives suddenly remember who they work for and what is the most important objective of any company. Obama said it on 14 April. The purpose of a company is to provide products and services - not make profits at the expense of all others. Show us where government intervention was not necessary.

How would Rick Wagoner been removed if government had not done it? The man never ran a single profitable operation. He was setting record losses in GM North America when they promoted him CEO of all GM. These same people would have force him out? Of course not, which is why government finally had to step in.

What tw said.

This is what happens in our "civilized" society. To wait for the peasants with pitchforks to stage a coup so that "self-regulation" finally occurs is a risky bet and an unlikely event.

Yeah....what tw said.

I am amazed that people can still retain such faith in the capacity of the market to create any kind of healthy or balanced economic picture without some kind of government oversight.

I would expect nothing less from a communist manc tart, respectfully so.

My opinion remains - No it should not be necessary. If the Gov't had not been so corrupt and kept bailing failed businesses out we would not have this problem. They would have failed gone away and new and innovative businesses would have taken over. All that happened was the Gov't tried to stop that which should have already happened several times. Oh, and they did it with the taxpayers.

The problem is those failed businesses would have taken thousands of innocent businesses down with them, all over the world. Hundreds of millions of pissed off unemployed, tend to make politicians nervous.

That's when the peasants get really ugly with the pitchforks.