Quote:
Originally Posted by ikaris
It's actually quite simple. If you're asking for a government handout because you've failed at your job, you don't get any bonuses or extra compensation like Wall street so greedily just did with taxpayer money (something like 18 billion). The audacity of these idiots to actually give themselves bonuses for monumentally failing forced the Obama administration to do something.
As for the argument about 50mil versus 500k, well I would suggest that the people that were leading these companies into failure are going to have great difficulty getting jobs for 50mil moving forward.
On the other hand, if you're running a successful financial firm without the need for a handout, then no restrictions apply.
I can't see how anyone could argue on behalf of people who have blindly failed with such ignorance that its caused such a catastrophe. If you're trying to say that there will be good people unintentionally getting screwed, I consider all of them part of the failure (with respect to the financial institutions that are asking for a bailout) considering the current state of the financial system.
|
Right, but let's say there's a hypothetical where a company receives a bailout, sometime shortly before or after firing their CEO. That 500K limit is going to reduce the number of qualified individuals who would be willing to take this job, essentially giving these companies a competitive disadvantage against other, non-bailout companies. Which essentially means the government is reducing the likelihood of them recouping their investment.
Now, the other possibility is that this creates a situation where you attract individuals who are less concerned about getting a paycheck and more concerned about doing something meaningful and important; and it might be an incentive for these companies to forget about hiring the most high-profile candidate and instead hire the most appropriate and competent. I hope that ends up being the result of this legislation.