Replies

What the hell does the one have to do with the other?

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.

Tort limits is a subject I'm torn by. I don't see a perfect solution in the foreseeable future due to the, for lack of a better term, the 'inteligence gap', between the leftist lawyers and judges and the saps on the juries that award these anomalous giant awards.

The Ford question depends on how 'dangerous' is defined. Cars are inherrently dangerous, and cost/benefit must be taken into account in every descision. There are three basic tugs at the design in regard to safty. Absolute safty, which will create heavier designs. Mandated fuel economy, which pulls toward lighter designs. And cost, which determines viabillity in the marketplace. The first two have the government pulling in opposite directions which is an imperfect entity trying to force perfection on another.

Back to the CEO 600 times question, positive or negative, a CEO's impact on a company's bottom line is more than 600 times that of the average worker. If the board is rewarding poor performance, again, it is the shareholders responsibility to do something about it, it's their money. On the other side, I'm sure there are examples of CEOs who are undercompensated for their positive impact on the company.

Well since you ask! You are the (shareholders) can fire a bad CEO. God is the only one who can fire a union thug by calling them home. Wages are not the reason I hate,despise,cannot stand unions. When it takes three people to do the job of one it stinks. The only way to get rid of a union is to go bankrupt and start over or shoot the bastards. They are a blite on the socicity they come from. They have been and will always be corrupt. The teachers and public employes unions have a self increasing attitude built in. They could care less about the students are the public. You sound like you are a union lawyer. You asked I gave you my opinion.