There are always jobs at the top if you're one of the best at what you do. If top talent at that level becomes available you do what it takes to get them, so while there may not be a whole lot of hunting for new young talent, if someone becomes available as a lateral hire and has good, proven credentials I guarantee you they won't be on the job market for long.

Another way to look at it: when firms want to save money in tough economic times they cut production and layoff at the bottom. When's the last time you heard of a company announce that in the interests of cutting cost they were eliminating their corporate governance positions?

Well don't be surprised when you start hearing this now.

It'll be the same way it always been, you may some changes in who holds the positions as people are replaced if the company is struggling or top of the line talent becomes available, but as long as the company exists that's a pretty stable job market. There aren't more executive positions being created and there aren't executive positions being eliminated, its how corporations are structured and the only changes are which individuals hold which jobs. And if struggling companies are restricted to paying less, their top talent will be hired up at companies which are faring better. The proposed solution here would be about equivalent to a sports league assigning a salary cap to the worst teams in the league but letting the front runners keep on spending with a big budget. All that happens is the good talent which was on the struggling teams will be hired up at the teams which can pay them what they're worth.

The $400,000 is fine as long as they are also payed with stock. This way the success of the company is tied to how much money they make.

I agree with my Theta sister on this point. There should be limits on bonuses to companies who took bail out money. They should be accountable to the American people.

However, I cringe at the thought of the government mandating a salary cap . If we do it on one bill, even if it is warranted, what is going to prevent Congress from making it law for anyone to make over 400,000?

Socialism here we come...

that's kind of what i was thinking

our country is screwed

Look, when you think about cars, clothes, food. Do you seriously think the president pays for any of this. He doesn't have bills, he has perks too. He has a staff that could probably use a few less people, but no, we're paying for those. I'm surprised we don't have a white house ass wiper.

These guys are where they are at because they are really good at what they do. These guys run the biggest companies in the world, they're running multi-billion dollar companies, if they got a cap, they wouldn't have much motivation and most of them would end up quitting because that's like pennies to them.

Plus, they are paying taxes on these bonuses, which I know the argument will be well if taxpayer money is helping pay them, but if we didn't bail them out, they wouldn't be able to pay these execs, and there, a budget shortfall.

Great point. I wonder how much the President's salary would be if all these were taken into consideration. Certainly in the tens of millions...

Obama's book deal is going to be worth hundreds of millions.

And, now we actually get this piece of idiocy...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090204/D964VSP00.html


And it is apparently a slippery slope indeed:
What better way to try to get poor people excited than sticking it to the rich, even if doing so has no discernible benefit for the government (these firms don't have federal funds anyways, and from another standpoint you are actually harming total tax revenues because even if the funds are instead paid to everyday employees, the executives are in a much higher tax bracket and would be paying a higher percent of that money to the government in taxes).

But hey, guess it's time we "spread the wealth around".

Isn't using bailout money for bonuses kind of, if you pardon the neologism, uncapitalistic. If the companies that failed and need the bail out (already sign of not the greatest organization) and used it for other purposes besides bonuses, it would, presumbly result in a "brain drain" where the best talent moves on to bigger and better things, allowing their previous companies to hire somebody who is maybe inexperienced, etc, some how less qualified. The company being backed by the government. But, if the companies use the bailout money for bonuses, then no one will move on with their careers, everyone will be in place and it's basically like the government is paying to maintain the status quo.

I feel that the totally free market companies that surived on their own should get the best people, not the ones being bailed out, which is most of them, I guess.

I guess now all policy decissions will be based on public opinion.

I can't even process that article right now. My head hurts.

What the hell?

Has, dare I say it, socialism? This is getting ridiculous.

I'd love to see Obama's portfolio, which company does he hold that he's trying to bolster with this stimulus to make himself rich? That's too much power put in the hands of the president and he needs to stop before everything this nation stands for is gone.

That made me think of this....Comrade Update

That's amazing. Saw it on Drudge earlier today.