CNBC rocks!! Advocates new $250,000 annual minimum wage for skilled workers!

[kid a]

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/19/cnbc-rich-wall-street/

Wow.
I suggest teachers be the first to sign the $250,000 contacts.

I promise not to ask for any merit pay, with my minimum quarter million dollar salary.

THANKS CNBC!!!

[ihavenobias]

1. Mini Rant

When are people going to realize that the outrageous pay of many on Wall Street is itself an unsustainable bubble! Seriously, think about it, these people got used to getting paid INSANE amounts of money (far and above what you need to live VERY comfortably with a beautiful house, car, clothes, food and vacations).

Why? It's complicated, but largely because their pay has been fueled by the house of cards that is fake and inflated (unsustainable) profits. Some is fraud, much was legal (but shouldn't have been), etc.

When are we going to bust THAT Wall Street bubble? Give me a fucking break, we're not talking about people making 50k or 100k or even 200k. And it's not so much about the total pay, it's about the ratio of pay compared to the average worker. Like how CEOs averaged 30 times what the average worker made in 1980, and today it's 400-500 times more.

Are the CEOs of today THAT fucking brilliant? Really? Do they work 370-470 times harder and smarter today than they did 30 years ago? This insane ratio is generally only in the U.S. by the way. In Japan and Germany (for example) the ratio is much closer, if not lower, than it was here in 1980.

[LiberalEsto]

4. Bingo!

The CEOs of today are, if anything, stupider and more crooked. After all, they created this economic disaster.

Instead of paying them 370-470 times more, we should sentence them to prison terms 370-470 times longer.

[OhioChick]

8. Couldn't agree with you more. n/t

[Turbineguy]

7. A trillion dollar per year rake-off

supposedly to connect capital with those who need it for business.

[W_HAMILTON]

9. It's not unsustainable.

They'll cut costs, they'll cut labor -- they'll do whatever it takes to sustain their salaries.

Then, when someone calls them out on their bullshit, they put on a show and claim they will work for $1 a year. If I had spent years raping my business of millions in salary and bonuses, I could afford to work for $1 a year as well.

You're right on most of your other points, about how the CEOs are not geniuses, in fact for the most part, they're pretty damn stupid. They don't deserve the pay they get, yet they will keep getting it. If it's one thing you can give them credit for, they know how to screw us and the system.

That's why it is NOT unsustainable.

If stockholders are too fucking stupid to keep their exec salaries in check (which they are, they actually excuse these insane salaries and bonuses), then we should put a cap on their pay. Then they'll bitch and moan about how "the best talent will leave!" But where are they going to go? Japan, where they pay the top talent a fraction of what we do? To Britain and France, those "evil socialist countries" they are always bitching about? Mexico, China? Hah, after good luck. They don't mind outsourcing our jobs to those countries, but they damn sure won't outsource their own jobs there!

PS - you're my 1000th post, congrats :) It's only appropriate my 1000th is me bitching about these bastard execs.

[ihavenobias]

10. You can't totally blame the shareholders.

The boards have far more control over top brass pay, and the relationship between CEOs and boards is very incestuous. It's one giant (pardon the phrase) circle jerk.

CEOs are on boards, board members are CEOs, and they all vote for each other to have enormous paychecks and golden parachutes, regardless of the term benefit or harm to the company.

[Whoa_Nelly]

2. ummm...did you forget your sarcasm thingy?

:sarcasm:

:hi:

[kid a]

3. I never know when to use that thing anymore!

[ihavenobias]

12. I'm astounded at times when people don't grasp OBVIOUS sarcasm. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Can't Really Agree With Your Post. It's Totally Twisting The Intent.

Even the responses on the blog itself are twisting it.

As far as the OP goes, it completely misses the point. Nowhere can the logic you're using be derived from the comments. As far as the blog, several were commenting as if it was a put down on people who make less, as if they're too stupid. Not the case at all. The case is that the best and brightest in the financial industry easily command salaries above that. If there was a limit of that, they'd go elsewhere. The companies would then not have the best and brightest running them, but the next tier of people. Personally, I can totally understand that argument.

[ihavenobias]

6. There's *some* logic to that, but it's been put on steroids.

Read my comment here. Why do (for example) CEOs make 370-470 times more than than they did in 1980? Are they THAT much "brighter"? The fact is that wages have been decoupled from productivity and merit.

This financial mess illustrates that. Not to mention the fact that some of the "best and brightest" helped create this economic disaster. Generally speaking, OF COURSE people who bust their asses in school doing highly skilled work deserve to get paid well. It's just the notion of what "paid well" means has become grossly distorted in the last 30 years.

[ihavenobias]

11. Kick n/t