So many ask when I explained the connection in that same paragraph, immediately after the question. Does anyone read anymore?
Isn't it 'conservative' thought to get all you can get? If you can get it, you must deserve it?
Some say CEO salaries are an issue for the shareholders. Sure. But aren't judgments an issue for juries? Do you really want the government putting a price tag on life? Do you think Ford should compare the cost of a few lives (based on government mandated limits) to the cost of retooling a dangerous car and go with the lesser cost?
BTW, I think the responsibility in this case lies at whoever was supposed to be watching the kid. I also don't think anyone’s life is worth 51.4 million, let alone an arm. At the same time, I have some problems with excessive CEO pay. I don't think anyone's work is worth the salaries/bonuses some CEOs receive. Having said that, I am always hesitant of government regulation; but that is just my idea of ‘conservatism’.
And just because I am thinking of a shirt tail related thread from earlier this evening… I also have trouble with the 'conservative' double standard for unions. How is it different when a union makes a business go under and when management salaries make a company go under? A CEO gets to negotiate the best salary they can get. Shouldn't the workers get that same opportunity? If workers can get a better deal with collective bargaining, why not let them? If a union succeeds in getting a wage increase, then why not let the CEO take a decrease in salary to keep the company afloat? It goes the other way often. Why is one ok, the other isn't?
I am curious to see what someone like you would say.