Make your case.

A Place For Impact:
Make your case.

no. The government should think twice about handing bail out money, because once it's given, it's no longer in their hands. that's just me though. and it's up to the execs, what they do to keep their reputation and keep the business going. we don't want execs to be running the business military style. lol.

yes!it was in that fiiiine print,that nobody read,when they signed up for the damn things!

R:
yes!it was in that fiiiine print,that nobody read,when they signed up for the damn things!

oh big brother! I disagree, one should use the money however they want. just have to know that there are people who will watch your moves like a hawk! lol.

Tax. end of problem.

if they are going to regulate pay on someone why not regulate the pay of actors and athletes? dont you think they get paid way to much for what they do?

LadyPunk:
if they are going to regulate pay on someone why not regulate the pay of actors and athletes? dont you think they get paid way to much for what they do?

it's a different situation than a "company" going bankrupt though.

but I agree with you, the millions that these celebrities make!

the only reason why I am in favor of companies having more freedom with their money is because a company is already regulated. for instance, you can't start a corporation without by-laws and stuff like that.

with celebrities and athletes, there are no holds barred.

LadyPunk:
if they are going to regulate pay on someone why not regulate the pay of actors and athletes? dont you think they get paid way to much for what they do?

They get paid what the market thinks they're worth. Hollywood knows what it's doing. The people making the real money there are the producers. They just don't get as much press.

Regarding your substantive point, the bailout situation is totally different from Hollywood (or music industry, etc) pay rates, because we're talking about the federal government subsidizing the pay of the one group (corporate america) as opposed to what a private industry has independently financed on their own (Hollywood et al).

Having said all that, it may not be entirely possible to regulate executive pay, at least not retroactively. There are contractual obligations in play.

LadyPunk:
if they are going to regulate pay on someone why not regulate the pay of actors
and athletes?

What about politicians?Like Reid and Pelosi?

That is Mr. Myers to You!:

LadyPunk:
if they are going to regulate pay on someone why not regulate the pay of actors
and athletes?

What about politicians?Like Reid and Pelosi?

The average CEO for a fortune 500 company made $10.4 million last year (according to this site: http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/)

Rank and file members of congress make $174,000.

You do realize that picking out two democratic legislators makes you look like a hack, right?

Aderleth23:
The average CEO for a fortune 500 company made $10.4 million last year

So!Why do you care about what someone else makes?You should care only what YOU make!

That is Mr. Myers to You!:

Aderleth23:
The average CEO for a fortune 500 company made $10.4 million last year

So!Why do you care about what someone else makes?You should care only what YOU make!

I care when it's being subsidized with my tax dollars. You should take your own advice, by the way.

Aderleth23:

LadyPunk:
if they are going to regulate pay on someone why not regulate the pay of actors and athletes? dont you think they get paid way to much for what they do?

They get paid what the market thinks they're worth. Hollywood knows what it's doing. The people making the real money there are the producers. They just don't get as much press.

Regarding your substantive point, the bailout situation is totally different from Hollywood (or music industry, etc) pay rates, because we're talking about the federal government subsidizing the pay of the one group (corporate america) as opposed to what a private industry has independently financed on their own (Hollywood et al).

Having said all that, it may not be entirely possible to regulate executive pay, at least not retroactively. There are contractual obligations in play.

Hollywood, it's all about publicity. that's all they know. lol.

Aderleth23:
I care when it's being subsidized with my tax dollars.

Why do you care?So what if it is your own tax money.You pay for welfare,schools,social security,all tax funded boondogles.This is just another one.

That is Mr. Myers to You!:

Aderleth23:
I care when it's being subsidized with my tax dollars.

Why do you care?So what if it is your own tax money.You pay for welfare,schools,social security,all tax funded boondogles.This is just another one.

Yes, but I support those programs. I don't support paying someone $10mil to completely fuck up their job.

A Place For Impact:
Make your case.

Corporate governance seems to have lost its way. I have no problem with paying bonuses for positive results, impressive bonuses for impressively good results. But corporate bonuses seem to be treated now as entitlements. Reward people, from those on the shop floor to those in the executive suite with corporate shares. Then the incentive will be on all to make the corporation profitable.