AIG

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Unless we give them each a raffle ticket when they're caught. We'll pick one each week who gets to become a legal citizen and we'll pick 2500 who are executed... it could work.

Not grant citizenship to any illegal that thinks he or she deserve it?

I mean "citizenship" in ancient Spartan terms of course. Don't mind the big ovens.

[lookout123]

You understand I was joking, correct?

I would never support a policy allowing an illegal to stay in the good ol' US of A. /lee greenwood playing in background/

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Queen of the Ryche

4) Buy plane fare to send the Illegal immigrants home - 20 million more jobs available!

Interesting. The best estimate I've seen was 12 million illegals.

I could be wrong.

[TheMercenary]

Estimates are as high as 30 million. I guess it depends on the source you care to believe. No one knows for sure.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

You understand I was joking, correct?

I would never support a policy allowing an illegal to stay in the good ol' US of A. /lee greenwood playing in background/

Of course I did.

"The helots were invited by a proclamation to pick out those of their number who claimed to have most distinguished themselves against the enemy, in order that they might receive their freedom; the object being to test them, as it was thought that the first to claim their freedom would be the most high spirited and the most apt to rebel. As many as two thousand were selected accordingly, who crowned themselves and went round the temples, rejoicing in their new freedom. The Spartans, however, soon afterwards did away with them, and no one ever knew how each of them perished."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparta#Helots

[Queen of the Ryche]

Ok, so 12 million. Assume half of them work, so there's 6 million more jobs. Better?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Queen of the Ryche

Ok, so 12 million. Assume half of them work, so there's 6 million more jobs. Better?

Absolutely better.

Also, less TB, Polio, etc, finding its way into the country.

[classicman]

U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul
Administration in Early Talks on Ways to Curb Compensation Across Finance

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter.

The initiative, which is in its early stages, is part of an ambitious and likely controversial effort to broadly address the way financial companies pay employees and executives, including an attempt to more closely align pay with long-term performance.

Administration and regulatory officials are looking at various options, including using the Federal Reserve's supervisory powers, the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission and moral suasion. Officials are also looking at what could be done legislatively.

Among ideas being discussed are Fed rules that would curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank -- such as paying loan officers for the volume of business they do, not the quality. The administration is also discussing issuing "best practices" to guide firms in structuring pay.

Regulators have long had the power to sanction a bank for excessive pay structures, but have rarely used it. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency last year quietly pressed an unidentified large bank to make changes "pertaining to compensation incentives for bank personnel responsible for assigning risk ratings," a spokesman said. Since 2007, it has privately directed 15 banks to change their executive compensation practices.

Government officials said their effort, which is just beginning, isn't aimed at setting pay or establishing detailed rules. "This is not going to be about capping compensation or micro-management," said an administration official. "It will be about understanding what is the best way to align compensation with sound risk management and long-term value creation."

The Treasury is expected to issue new rules sometime in the next few weeks.

Interesting. So the Gov't is going to address compensation packages in private companies, some of whom did NOT take any of the bailout money.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bailout money has nothing to do with it, they're talking about companies that are in federally regulated businesses, specifically finance. And that's all they're doing is talking, trying to figure out guidelines that would help prevent this shit from happening again. It's about time the feds started doing what we hired them for.

[classicman]

Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees. The fact that it has nothing to do with bailout money makes it even more disconcerting.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by classicman

Dunno how comfortable I am with the Gov't getting any more involved in the compensation of employees. The fact that it has nothing to do with bailout money makes it even more disconcerting.

Do you have a problem with the government setting a minimum wage?

[classicman]

Nope, what is the relevance?

[Shawnee123]

Government regulates the "lowest" wage a company can pay a person. You (and correct me if I'm wrong) seem to have an issue with government regulating "top pay." Both concepts are designed to protect the person who is NOT making 50 katrillion dollars a year and don't have a 40 katrillion nest egg to fall back on: the former by not letting a company getting away with paying a buck fifty an hour, the latter by ensuring that the top pay scales do not jeopardize the viability of the company and therefore protecting the lowest paid employees from paying for the extravagance of the top paid employees who, let's face it, don't really give a shit if the company crumbles...there are more to be had.

Not saying I agree with the concept either, but it's food for thought when you worry about government regulations of wages. If a minimum wage had never been devised, how many of those big companies would pay their "people in the trenches" even less? If regulation of top wages does not occur, how much farther does the gap become, thereby making the lowest paid wages worth even less?

[classicman]

If regulation of top wages does not occur, how much farther does the gap become, thereby making the lowest paid wages worth even less?

Without this turning into another "minimum wage" or "living wage" discussion, the restriction on maximum pay is not something I think our Gov't should be getting into. The minimum is fine to suit its purpose, but restricting the maximum? The correlation isn't there for me in a free market society.

[Shawnee123]

Why was a minimum wage implemented? Why is this 'realignment of compensation' being considered? You can't, in good faith, support one aspect fully and rail against the other aspect, without exposing biases in your perception of who in society should be regulated and who shouldn't. If a company fails while Big-Headed Old Fat White Man buys more yachts, who suffers?

Seriously, c-man...think about it. You can't have your pop-tart and eat it too.