Impact of Oinkbama salary caps on NY City...

@Frank Apisa,

It's the effective implementation of the law though Frank.

I mean, if it only applies to CEOs, then the CEO could simply transfer over to the COO or the CIO, or the President, or the CFO, or some newly created position. Install a 'new' dummy CEO and have the old CEO take over the CFO job making 18 million instead of 20.

Again, there are at least 50 people making over 500k if the CEO makes 20 million. Is the government really going to knock all of them down to 500k?

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

It's the effective implementation of the law though Frank.

I mean, if it only applies to CEOs, then the CEO could simply transfer over to the COO or the CIO, or the President, or the CFO, or some newly created position. Install a 'new' dummy CEO and have the old CEO take over the CFO job making 18 million instead of 20.

Again, there are at least 50 people making over 500k if the CEO makes 20 million. Is the government really going to knock all of them down to 500k?

Yes! And why not? That's what happens when your company fails.

Alternatively, they can decide not to take our public money and have no paycheck at all when the go under.

Not a tough choice to me.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Same answer as Cyclop, maporsche.

Honestly...has it finally become too much to ask the rich...who have been getting more and more rich at the expense of the middle class...to take a hit here.

I truly appreciate your devotion to free market dynamics...but we are in a major disaster right now...perhaps even an irreversible one. YES...I think the fat cats have to take a major hit right now.

Frankly, if I could dictate the terms...I would dictate that not one penny goes to any corporation who pays ANY executive more than $500,000. Stock options...only redeemable after the loan is paid back, seems very, very fair to me.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I'm not saying "why not" I agree with the general premise. I don't even want to bail out these companies.

I just read the bill online and it does apply to any and all employees in the company. And while I DO agree with this measure, we had better be careful of the consequences too. It's not just the CEO that may jump ship now, it could be the CEO and 50-100 of supposedly the best/brightest employees. This obviously isn't true in all cases, but if it happens we may be signing ourselves up for more than we can chew. I'm not worried about these companies failing. I wish we'd let them fail INSTEAD of giving TARP money. But I am worried that we'll pour billions of dollars at these companies, cut the pay of the entire management staff, they leave and are replaced with people who can't cut the mustard (or can't get up to speed fast enough to save the company), AND the company will still fail.

I hope they all fail for their mistakes, but I wish they'd do it w/o our government giving them billions of dollars first.

And I'm curious Cyclops if you're pissed that this isn't retroactive, nor does it apply to GM/Chrysler, nor does it apply to other companies who receive federal funding.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I'm not saying "why not" I agree with the general premise. I don't even want to bail out these companies.

I just read the bill online and it does apply to any and all employees in the company. And while I DO agree with this measure, we had better be careful of the consequences too. It's not just the CEO that may jump ship now, it could be the CEO and 50-100 of supposedly the best/brightest employees. This obviously isn't true in all cases, but if it happens we may be signing ourselves up for more than we can chew. I'm not worried about these companies failing. I wish we'd let them fail INSTEAD of giving TARP money. But I am worried that we'll pour billions of dollars at these companies, cut the pay of the entire management staff, they leave and are replaced with people who can't cut the mustard (or can't get up to speed fast enough to save the company), AND the company will still fail.

I hope they all fail for their mistakes, but I wish they'd do it w/o our government giving them billions of dollars first.

And I'm curious Cyclops if you're pissed that this isn't retroactive, nor does it apply to GM/Chrysler, nor does it apply to other companies who receive federal funding.

I think it should be retroactive to anyone who has gotten emergency federal funding, yes. There are all sorts of businesses who do work with the government on a regular basis who are not begging us for money.

Be careful what you wish for; these companies fail, and a lot of what we take for granted can disappear real quick. It's important to remember that the baseline state for humanity is not society but anarchy. America is the product of several thousand years of social and governmental evolution, but that doesn't mean we can't regress when times get tough - it has happened before and will happen again.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

So this whole salary cap really is pointless huh?

I don't know if it's pointless, I just know that salary caps aren't going to save the economy. But salary caps might send a strong warning to the companies taking public money, and that might be the real point they are trying to make. Remember, presentation and implication mean a lot in politics and in economics.

0 Replies

The thing which is missing in the picture here....

GRANTED if my tax dollars are going to bail some company out I am going to be offended to read that 50 people in that company are making more than five times what I do. Ideally that should not be allowed.

GRANTED also however that is simply not feasible under present circumstances. These banks and financial companies and the auto companies as well have ended up on the dole precisely because they were obeying government orders and directives. Under those circumstances the people who run those companies and make them work would be totally correct in being offended at any sort of an Obama salary cap and in the entirely likely situation in which a Chinese or UAE firm were to make them a better offer under such circumstances, you should anticipate most of them leaving.

What's wrong with the picture? Does all of this mean that the long-suffering tax payer has nothing to be pissed over or no right to be pissed or offended??

The thing which is missing is the public hangings. Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Jamie Gorilla, Frank Raines and probably several dozen others should have been executed for this **** and in most of the countries in the world, they probably would have been.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Does this apply to Board of Director members too? Doesn't look like it, but they are just as responsible.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

GRANTED also however that is simply not feasible under present circumstances. These banks and financial companies and the auto companies as well have ended up on the dole precisely because they were obeying government orders and directives.

Does your ideology REALLY force you to try to exonerate the executives and blame the government? Do you really hate your government that much?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Put it this way..... It would be hard to frame any sort of a logical case against anarchy based on how the United states has operated recently.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

By the way...it truly would not bother me if some sort of cap on wages of everyone were imposed...although I think it should be imposed via income tax rates.

If you earn a billion dollars...Uncle Sam...the American people...get half of it off the top.

Wouldn't bother me a bit.

What about the person working at a factory that makes $40,000 a year?
Would you also say that the govt should be able to cap his salary at a certain arbitrary level?

Or what about the independent trucker that might gross $150,000 a year, but only nets $35,000 a year?
Would youy also say that the govt can arbitrarily cap his salary?

And who would be the person deciding who could earn what amount?
What would the formula be to make that determination?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

What about the person working at a factory that makes $40,000 a year? Would you also say that the govt should be able to cap his salary at a certain arbitrary level?

Yes I do. I think that $500,000 per year used earlier would do nicely.

Quote:

Or what about the independent trucker that might gross $150,000 a year, but only nets $35,000 a year?
Would youy also say that the govt can arbitrarily cap his salary?

Yes I do. I think that $500,000 per year used earlier would do nicely.

Quote:

And who would be the person deciding who could earn what amount?

I think we could ask congress to set up some sort of cap...although I much prefer raising income taxes at progessive rates.

Quote:

What would the formula be to make that determination?

Well, mysteryman...based on what I have said so far...can you guess what formula I would use without me actually saying it?

2 Replies

@gungasnake,

Respectfully as possible, Gunga (not looking to start a pissing match)...if you find it hard to frame a logical case that our form of government is not anarchy...you simply do not understand what anarchy is.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank,
Are you saying that everyone, no matter what their job, their skills, or their own hard work accomplishes, should make an annual salary of $500,000?

If thats the case, where is the incentive to actually work hard and accomplish anything?

Would you allow companies to fire people that wont work?

And if I am reading you right, you wuld use confiscatory tax levels to prevent anyone from making over $500,000 a year.

So, should a 16 year old kid working his first job at McDonalds also make $500,000 annually

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

Are you saying that everyone, no matter what their job, their skills, or their own hard work accomplishes, should make an annual salary of $500,000?

WHERE DID I SAY ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING THAT????????????????????????????????

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Judging by your statements in this post...Post: # 3,564,776
Thats what you are suggesting.
You keep saying that $500,000 would do nicely, no matter what scenario I posited.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

As far as I am concerned, as long as its done LEGALLY, a person should be allowed to make as much money as they are capable of.

To many people seem to think the economy is a zero sum game.
They think that the pie has only so much money, and if you make more it means that someone else is making less.
I dont believe that.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Mysteryman...if you don't understand the language...why are you debating in it???

You were asking me about a cap. A CAP!!!!

I responded about a cap! A CAP!!!

That mean the VERY MOST A PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO EARN.

IT DOES NOT MEAN HOW MUCH HE SHOULD EARN.

Do you understand what you were asking me....and why you cannot draw an inference that I am suggesting "everyone earn the same" from my response?

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Quote:

As far as I am concerned, as long as its done LEGALLY, a person should be allowed to make as much money as they are capable of.

I understand that. I disagree with it.

What if that situation resulted in one person owning 99% of all the wealth of America....are you so wedded to that notion that you would say...OKAY?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

What if that situation resulted in one person owning 99% of all the wealth of America....are you so wedded to that notion that you would say...OKAY?

First of all, its not possible for that to happen.
The economy is NOT a "zero sum game".
If you have more, that doesnt mean that I must have less.

But, looking at your imaginary scenario, if that person did it LEGALLY, then I have no problem with it.

1 Reply

Impact of Oinkbama salary caps on NY City...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know