[Israfeel]

http://abcnews.go.co...id=ESPNheadline

I am tempted to respond to this with blind rage but will the Obama administration and in effect the government managing this company lead to its ruin? People argue that the government is restraining AIG's ability to grow by not allowing it to recruit the best talent.

This post has been edited by Israfeel: 11 November 2009 - 06:01 PM

[Bob Janova]

If they didn't want (reasonable) pay limits imposed on them, they shouldn't have screwed up their business so badly they needed rescuing. All banks and insurance companies that have received government support should have similar conditions imposed on them.

[Erich Ludendorff]

The best talent? Is that what they call it? If they managed so poorly with the best talent, I fear to see what will happen with inadequate employees.

[Penguin]

With public opinion sharply against the AIG bonuses, it would be politically silly not to impose these salary limits. Just take a look at this Gallup poll from earlier in the year:



or this question later on in the poll:

This post has been edited by Penguin: 11 November 2009 - 06:06 PM

[Israfeel]

But maybe that's the question here really. Should public opinion be used to run a company, are government run corporations usually successful.

[ty345]

Israfeel, on Nov 11 2009, 07:14 PM, said:

But maybe that's the question here really. Should public opinion be used to run a company, are government run corporations usually successful.

The Post Office says hi.

[HHAYD]

Israfeel, on Nov 11 2009, 05:49 PM, said:

http://abcnews.go.co...id=ESPNheadline

I am tempted to respond to this with blind rage but will the Obama administration and in effect the government managing this company lead to its ruin? People argue that the government is restraining AIG's ability to grow by not allowing it to recruit the best talent.

AIG wanted a bailout, U.S. government imposes a guideline for AIG's spending if they want bailout in case if AIG blows away all of the money, and AIG accepts the terms in return for the bailout.

If AIG wanted to pay more to their CEO, they might have to repay the U.S. government all of the money they received from the bailout.

This post has been edited by HHAYD: 11 November 2009 - 06:27 PM

[deja]

ty345, on Nov 12 2009, 01:23 AM, said:

The Post Office says hi.

And the post office loses money yearly.

[Israfeel]

ty345, on Nov 11 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

The Post Office says hi.

http://money.aol.com...-billion/592358

2.4 billion in loses, in one quarter.

[deja]

Taking out their bonuses is wrong. Both legally and ethically. They agreed to work for a certain contract. Breaking that contract is on every level: wrong. Especially since many of the employees receiving the bonuses were brought in to try and help fix the mess that caused all this.

Working for bonus instead of salary isn't that rare of a thing in the business world.

This post has been edited by deja: 11 November 2009 - 06:37 PM

[Arcturus Jefferson]

I really don't have any sympathy for a bunch of corporate welfare queens.

EDIT: deja, it is similarly wrong to accept money taken from others to avoid dealing with your failures.

This post has been edited by Arcturus Jefferson: 11 November 2009 - 06:43 PM

[PrinceCaspian]

1) We should have let companies like these fail.

2) Of course the government has a right, no, a duty to control people's salaries. The government should make sure that no one makes too much, because then we will have a huge gap between the rich and poor. It'd be best if the Obama Administration capped all salaries made in the US to under $200,000. No one should be rich.

[bkphysics]

PrinceCaspian, on Nov 11 2009, 04:42 PM, said:

1) We should have let companies like these fail.

2) Of course the government has a right, no, a duty to control people's salaries. The government should make sure that no one makes too much, because then we will have a huge gap between the rich and poor. It'd be best if the Obama Administration capped all salaries made in the US to under $200,000. No one should be rich.

Your first point I agree with ... your second point I pray is sarcasm ....

[Emperor Stranger]

Holy !@#$. I feel for these men. I would be raging too if I had a 90% pay cut..

[Emperor Stranger]

PrinceCaspian, on Nov 11 2009, 08:42 PM, said:

1) We should have let companies like these fail.

2) Of course the government has a right, no, a duty to control people's salaries. The government should make sure that no one makes too much, because then we will have a huge gap between the rich and poor. It'd be best if the Obama Administration capped all salaries made in the US to under $200,000. No one should be rich.

Your second point is so un-American... I don't think that Bin Laden could be that un-American. (OK, I am being a little facetious.)

[MiasmaCircle]

Emperor Stranger, on Nov 11 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

Your second point is so un-American... I don't think that Bin Laden could be that un-American. (OK, I am being a little facetious.)

I come close to PrinceCaspian's line of thinking, though not as extreme.
But I found a larger issue with things.
Who the bloody hell are you to determine who is un-american and who is not?

[Emperor Stranger]

MiasmaCircle, on Nov 11 2009, 09:02 PM, said:

I come close to PrinceCaspian's line of thinking, though not as extreme.
But I found a larger issue with things.
Who the bloody hell are you to determine who is un-american and who is not?

Uhm, America is a capitalism. Whether you like it or not, everyone has the right to succeed. If that means they make more than another person, then oh well. Look at the irony we call Michael Moore. He made $130m+ off his anti-capitalism movie. While I disagree with what the movie's topic was about, I don't disagree that he should be allowed to profit off of it. (However ironic it is.)

Capping pay is just a way to discourage people from trying to succeed, and thus will hurt the economy.

Quote

The American Dream, that has lured tens of millions of all nations to our shores in the past century has not been a dream of material plenty, though that has doubtlessly counted heavily. It has been a dream of being able to grow to fullest development as a man and woman, unhampered by the barriers which had slowly been erected in the older civilizations, unrepressed by social orders which had developed for the benefit of classes rather than for the simple human being of any and every class.

[Lamuella]

deja, on Nov 11 2009, 07:27 PM, said:

And the post office loses money yearly.

the post office loses money because ity has a commitment to a service rather than being run for a profit.

In some very rural areas, services like UPS and Fed-Ex actually pay the postage to have the post office deliver parcels for them, because it's not economically viable for them to drive a truck all the way out there, whereas the post office, with its commitment to service, will head out there anyway.

The post office isn't meant to make money. What it's meant to do is provide a bloody good service, and it does that admirably.

[Lamuella]

Emperor Stranger, on Nov 11 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Holy !@#$. I feel for these men. I would be raging too if I had a 90% pay cut..

would you be raging if that was a 90% cut from a multi million dollar salary?

[Kenadian_2006]

Lamuella, on Nov 11 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

would you be raging if that was a 90% cut from a multi million dollar salary?

Of course, instead of a 10K square foot home he has to settle for 2500 square feet and a Mercedes.