Chris Butler_

Why Capping Pay Is Likely to Work

First, Felix keeps confusing the notion of "anyone with a pulse" willing to work for $500,000 versus "talendted executives" willing to work for $500,000. Which point are you trying to make?

Yes, you will be able to find housewives, homeless people and 5th graders to be the CEO of a large, multi-national bank. But, no, experienced, talented executives will *not* choose that job if they're offered considerably more to work for any other industry or non-capped bank. What's a poor government to do in that case? Cap all pay everywhere?

Further Felix, define "work" when you say "Why Capping Pay Is Likely to Work." That's such an ambiguous title when precision is necessary. Work for who? Clients of the bank, the taxpayers, Congress, or the "Re-Elect Obama 2012 Campaign"?


Further, commenter Chris B notes that "If someone thinks they're too good to work for $500k, that in itself demonstrates an attitude of arrogance and hubris. How can we expect individuals with a messianic complex to make good decisions? The evidence says they don't." Are you high? Seriously. Are you stoned? Just for argument let's just go ahead and assume your bong-induced comment that good decision-making and arrogance are mutually exclusive.

You seriously want to assert that anyone shunning a $500,000 compensation package is hubristic? Good for you, sensei. It sounds to me like *you've* got the messianic complex. You know the exact nature of the problem and its precise cure-all, don't you, my msnmoney-quoting freind? Even though markets are complex multi-variable systems, capable of evolution and adaptation, you've been so endowed with wisdom to have placed your divine finger on what ails us. Thank God (for your presence in the midst of our ignorance)!

Go ahead Chris B (previous poster, not to be confused with me - Chris Butler) - tell free agents in the NFL that they're all arrogant. In fact, every professional athlete in the big three sports here in America are arrogant. They are all so hubristic to think they can make more for another team. And then they go out and confirm their arrogance by getting it. It seems that GMs are willing to pay more for more perceived talent. That same thinking is flawed in banking, apparently.

OK, so you say entertainers don't count. Fine. Heart surgeons? Egotistical b*st*rds! Who do they think they are earning more than half a million! Hell, I've heard a few of them actually killed patients! Sure, they perform a few menial tasks like curing the terminally ill, but they actually think they're deserving of hefty compensation packages! For killing people, no less! They must all think they're God or something.

Enough sarcasm. If you can't see that such an important policy intervention into the private sector would have unintended consequences (perhaps both good and bad), then in my opinion, you either cannot see at all, or refuse to. Either way, you'd be better off just admitting what you already know - people make mistakes. Investment and commercial banks made huge mistakes and had the governmnet let it go, the free market would have punished them severely. And yes, the real economy would have been punished. I dare say, however, we would have learned a hard lesson, adapted, and moved on.

Autoworkers' Pay Only Small Factor in Detroit's Problems

Hey New Chrysler Retiree-

Sorry to hear about your rough life. I really am. And I had no idea just how much you were sacrificing to make our automaotive industry competeive. Thanks for that.

But you misunderstand the crux of the argument - rational thinking people don't think you've got it easy. We just think that your compensation structure contributed to the Big 3's inability to compete with other auto companies enough to have avoided the need to come before the taxpayer with your beggars bowl in hand.

I don't fault the UAW for their existence. They've done great things for some of the exact reasons you point to. But they've gone too far. Your job is safer today in large part due to the efforts of the UAW. Unfortunately, they've now cost you a chunk of your retirement. They may have cost us all an entire once-proud industry.

Finally, the evils of making cars, so clearly articulated in your post are present in many industries. Carpal tunnel? Are you serious? Talk to secretaries. They ain't making $73 per hour but have the same condition. Exposure to dangerous chemicals? That's what firemen do. They ain't making $73 per hour. Hard physical labor? Talk to anybody on a construction site. Do they make $73 an hour? The point is, you are not unique in what you endure but you've been compensated more than others exposed to the same hardships. The only difference is now you want me to (a) make you a loan that would be the riskiest asset in my portfolio, or (b) just give you money because "you've had it rough" or (c) just give you money because you're "so important" to the economy.

Sorry. Restructure your costs and we'll talk. Or, perhaps we should save every industry under duress, that have had "hardships" or were at one time or another "very important to the economy." That's repugnant to most people, me especially. I'll save the details about how life dealt me tough hand for a future post that promises to be every bit as whiny as this thread.

Autoworkers' Pay Only Small Factor in Detroit's Problems

There are a whole lot of people posting here that are sticking up for "the working man." Apparently, auto workers in the US are only slightly better off than slave labor in African diamond mines. My mistake. The only difference between the two, I guess, is I ought to get down on my knees and thank the good Lord above every night that the UAW is helping keep America great! If only the UAW could solve that pesky African slave labor issue. And while they're at it, they ought to look into running our banking system and save those poor tellers from exploitation by "the man." By this time next year, and you heard it here first, Ron Gettelfinger will be our Federal Reserve chairman. Prosperity at last!