@Debra Law,
A group of top AIG management staged some sort of conference at a luxury hotel/resort a couple of weeks after the Federal government, the taxpayers, provided billions to avert financial crisis. Reportedly the cost of that conference was over $ 443K, and one doesn’t have to look far to find outraged candidates and citizens. There are demands that AIG and the executives be punished. “Make them pay back the money, and fire those who attended the meeting.” On its face that might seem a reasonable reaction, but is it?
Was the event illegal? Apparently no laws were broken by the company in assembling its executives in the wake of the catastrophic credit crisis. Surely no one would agree that the government should have the right to determine such details as what/where/when business meetings should be legally held. Think of how invasive of liberty that power would be. Joe Public owns and operates a small/mid-sized business, but has to get government permission before assembling his managers and supervisors for a weekend of intense team-building. Absurd, isn’t it. But, some would say it would be different if Joe Public’s business depended upon taxpayer money to operate. That might be a persuasive argument, if we clearly understand that Joe Public’s business has been nationalized, and is now a part of a socialized economic system. Joe Public, in this case, is no longer the owner of his own business, but is merely the manager for the new owner, the federal bureaucracy. No one has gone so far, yet, to suggest that the capitalist system that has prevailed and served this nation so well, should be replaced by a centralized socialist economy.
We aren’t told what the agenda for the meeting/conference, or whatever, was. Did they discuss the decisions and events that led their company into trouble, or how best to utilize the taxpayer’s money to repair the damage? We don’t know, do we just how much of the time was spent during this gathering focused on minimizing the effects on AIG, and protecting their stockholders. The presumption is that the AIG managers met for purely social celebration; that they spent a few days gloating over how cleverly they put one over on the taxpayers and government while wallowing in excess. Doubtless those executives weren’t staying at the Motel Six, and they certainly enjoyed the luxuries that wealthy top executives have come to expect in our society. They obviously ate well, slept on great beds in nice rooms, and spent time away from business at the pool, in the sauna, or on the masseuse’s table. After the tumultuous weeks and month leading up to AIG’s immanent failure, those executives were working under unbelievable stress, and it shouldn’t be surprising that they leapt at the chance to unwind. We don’t know how many executives attended this notorious event, but it wouldn’t take very many to run up a $400K tab at a luxury hotel used for a business conference. A three day conference for 100 executives would cost about $4,430 each, or $1,476 per executive day. Not cheap by any means, but not nearly so out of line as the total might suggest to some folks. The company, who presumably picked up the tab, did nothing illegal.
However, spending that $443K had the effect of projecting the image of business executives that is so beloved of the Left. Arrogant, greedy and intemperate old men whose sole purpose and joy in life is to exploit the working classes. There certainly are such people in the world, but most folks are just doing the best they can to live up to their responsibilities in a complex and unforgiving world. Top executives of major firms responsible for managing the assets of investors worth many billions of dollars are very well paid, and that’s a nettle under the blanket for those who believe that no one should have or own more than any other person. A manager/executive’s compensation is negotiated between the individual and his employers. Manager’s don’t belong to unions, but they do belong to an “old boy network” that serves much the same purpose. After the first million, or so, the money is almost secondary to the manager’s need to firmly establish his/her position among others in similar positions. Why work for $1m, when your opposite number in Corp. X is currently making $5m? Is any manager/executive “worth” some millions per year? Who is to say, but those who employ the manager/executive? The Boards of Directors represent the investors, and the investors’ care less about what anyone is paid than they do in the yield on their investment.
In a socialist system, the central bureaucracy decides how much everyone earns … from the top executive to the least skilled worker with a week on the job. Experience has shown that is no panacea for inequity and unfair compensation. Graft, corruption, greed, arrogance, intemperance, cronyism, etc., are even more evident in Socialist or Religious Dictatorships than they are in New York, or London. It may be of some solace to those who have little initiative, prudence, or ambition to bring everyone down to their level, but it is far better, in my estimation, to encourage everyone to aspire to wealth and property. Humans aren’t angels, and trying to make them so is a dangerous route for any government to take. We all look out for our families and ourselves first. We want to be secure in our possessions and no matter how much we might have we tend to want more. That’s a fact of life that ultimately undermines every leveler’s philosophy.
