The Maximum Wage

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
barfo said:
In that case, the perks are pretty nice, but the salary ($174K) isn't that high. Although it is hard to compare that to a private sector salary, since there isn't any such thing as a private company congressperson.

barfo
Click to expand...

You don't remember Dan Rostenkowski?
 
maxiep said:
Yeah, but Mitch McConnell is going to have to keep either Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe in line, and that's highly unlikely. As long as Harry Reid and President Obama enforce party unity, the GOP leadership won't be able to stop the bill.
Click to expand...

With Minnesota still not seating anyone and Ted Kennedy still unable to participate due to illness, they need more than 2 cross-over votes. They need at least 3, assuming they lose no one from their party, which is unlikely since there are conservative Democrats.

In any case, I don't know if they want to just force it through. They probably want at least some semblance of bipartisan support, which probably means more compromise.
 
barfo said:
And, certainly there are people who value that. Not getting fired, I mean, not the naked part.

barfo
Click to expand...

And all of those non-salary items are referred to as "psychic benefits". Meaning, they have no concrete value, but are a factor in choosing a job. You can also include things like lifestyle, commute time, hours required, stress level, culture, etc. When you apply monetary values to those items and add them to the difference in salary, they generally turn out to be close if not surpassing the private sector position.

If you want to stimulate the economy, give people incentives. I think fear is among the best. Everyone should feel as if they don't perform at their best every day, they will be fired.
 
Minstrel said:
With Minnesota still not seating anyone and Ted Kennedy still unable to participate due to illness, they need more than 2 cross-over votes. They need at least 3, assuming they lose no one from their party, which is unlikely since there are conservative Democrats.

In any case, I don't know if they want to just force it through. They probably want at least some semblance of bipartisan support, which probably means more compromise.
Click to expand...

Do they need 60 votes or do they need 60%? Because I guarantee you they'll wheel Sen. Kennedy in to cast that vote, even if he's expired. Chuck Hegel is another potential crossover. Heck, the new Senator from NH may swing that way too.
 
maxiep said:
Do they need 60 votes or do they need 60%?
Click to expand...

60%, but fractions are rounded up. Even counting only 99 members, that's 59.4 votes needed, which gets rounded up to 60 (according to what I've read).
 
Minstrel said:
With Minnesota still not seating anyone and Ted Kennedy still unable to participate due to illness, they need more than 2 cross-over votes. They need at least 3, assuming they lose no one from their party, which is unlikely since there are conservative Democrats.

In any case, I don't know if they want to just force it through. They probably want at least some semblance of bipartisan support, which probably means more compromise.
Click to expand...


They don't need any crossover votes to pass the bill, and Reid should force McConnell's hand on the filibuster if the package is such a home run.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
why don't they just vote and pass, and if he filibusters, they can argue it again?
Click to expand...

Or, if the GOP filibusters, Reid rushes out to the steps of the Capitol and complains to an adoring media about the GOP blocking people from putting food in their kids' mouths. It's really that simple if the bill is the greatest thing ever. If it has problems, Reid still gets to blame the GOP for obstruction while tweaking the bill to make it more effective. :dunno:
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
why don't they just vote and pass, and if he filibusters, they can argue it again?
Click to expand...

Presumably because it would be politically embarrassing to have "their" bill blocked from even reaching vote. In most cases, the Senate majority leader (regardless of party) doesn't take a bill to the floor until he/she already knows he/she has the votes, which is why filibusters rarely happen. Occasionally, to make a point, the majority party will force the minority party's hand and spin a filibuster as "obstructionist." But I don't think Obama and Democrats want to be involved in such partisan rancor on this bill. There will be partisan fights without question over the next four years, but I think Obama wants to open with a tone of bipartisan work to "help fix" the economy.

This is just what I am interpreting.
 
maxiep said:
And all of those non-salary items are referred to as "psychic benefits". Meaning, they have no concrete value, but are a factor in choosing a job. You can also include things like lifestyle, commute time, hours required, stress level, culture, etc. When you apply monetary values to those items and add them to the difference in salary, they generally turn out to be close if not surpassing the private sector position.
Click to expand...

Depends on whose weighting scheme you use. Obviously not yours or mine, or we'd be in government, right?

If you want to stimulate the economy, give people incentives. I think fear is among the best. Everyone should feel as if they don't perform at their best every day, they will be fired.
Click to expand...

Or killed. Killing them would instill a higher level of fear, I'd think.

barfo
 
Minstrel said:
Presumably because it would be politically embarrassing to have "their" bill blocked from even reaching vote. In most cases, the Senate majority leader (regardless of party) doesn't take a bill to the floor until he/she already knows he/she has the votes, which is why filibusters rarely happen. Occasionally, to make a point, the majority party will force the minority party's hand and spin a filibuster as "obstructionist." But I don't think Obama and Democrats want to be involved in such partisan rancor on this bill. There will be partisan fights without question over the next four years, but I think Obama wants to open with a tone of bipartisan work to "help fix" the economy.

This is just what I am interpreting.
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating that you would post this considering what Obama said directly to the GOP today regarding their lack of support for this bill and their "failed policies", which is a laugher considering Obama has been in the Senate majority for 2 years. I was astonished that the President would directly call out the GOP when no GOP support is needed to pass the bill. I also wonder how, if this is such a grave emergency that needs immediate action, why the Democrats would put politics before their passage of the bill. The longer this goes on, and the more we hear from Democrats how urgently this needs to be passed when they won't even try for cloture, the more political damage they accumulate.
 
Last edited:
PapaG said:
I was astonished that the President would directly call out the GOP when no GOP support is needed to pass the bill.
Click to expand...

They need Republican support to get the bill to an up/down vote. And certainly Obama and the Democrats are playing politics. They're no better or worse than Republicans in terms of playing political games. You won't hear me defend Democrats as any less about "playing politics" than Republicans.
 
Minstrel said:
They need Republican support to get the bill to an up/down vote. And certainly Obama and the Democrats are playing politics. They're no better or worse than Republicans in terms of playing political games. You won't hear me defend Democrats as any less about "playing politics" than Republicans.
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing this, but there are quite a few Senate Dems from red states who may not want to see this come to a vote.
 
PapaG said:
Perfect, and those conditions are known and available to you when you accept the money. The terms don't change after that other than perhaps interest on a student loan. So if the "rules" are so important at the time of the agreement, isn't it a bit unethical for the lender to then put additional restrictions on you, seemingly on a whim?
Click to expand...

But in this case, PapaG, conditions changed. I mean, union workers have been forced to take pay cuts and cuts in benefits. They signed onto a job with certain pay and fringes and had to give back. So it's hardly iron clad.

And I can't see it as a whim. The idea behind high salary and bonus is to reward success and to bring in the best. Well, if a company needs billions in OUR money to stay afloat, they have not succeeded and their people are not the best.
 
blazerboy30 said:
The banks can not just change the conditions of my real estate loans at any time they decide to. We both signed the loan agreements up front, and if something is to change, the loan documents need to be re-written, with both parties agreeing to the terms and signing for them.

I'm sure you don't want to promote predatory lending practices.
Click to expand...

So it turns out (according to this morning's Oregonian) that the new wage limits do not apply retroactively to firms that have already received bailouts, but only to future bailout firms. There is thus no issue about changing terms after the loan is signed.

So this discussion we had, delightful as it was, was all for naught. But at least the post count went up.

barfo
 
price and wage freeze sounds so nixonian
 
You know, I was thinking about this...

If you were a CEO making, let's say, 10M last year...and your pay was now capped at 500k.

You're stuck making 5% of your previous salary. Great job or horrible job.

For those of us making 50-100k, which would be worse? Getting fired, or making $2500-5000 annually for trying to do your job better? I know that, for me, Unemployment Insurance would give me more than 5% of my current wages. Then I could sit at home and watch TV all day.
 
CEO job security is based on performance. Being a VP or something like that making 200k is more attractive, less stress, etc than making 500k
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
What about hastily debated, rushed legislation?
Click to expand...

At the same time, that is what we used to always get, and some of us asked for change. Just because legislation is pushed through does not make it mutually exsclusive from the proper scrutiny. I am happy that they are trimming it up and getting rid of some pieces of it. That shows they are all communicating and debating it.
 
hasoos said:
At the same time, that is what we used to always get, and some of us asked for change.
Click to expand...

And at the same time, some of us warned that the "change" you asked for may be worse that what existed before.
 
maxiep said:
And at the same time, some of us warned that the "change" you asked for may be worse that what existed before.
Click to expand...

And then nit picked every fucking thing in the first two weeks in an effort to prove that Obama was lying the entire time and will plunge the country into some Bill Ayers worshiping pseudo socialist state where up is down and orange is purple and "The road to serfdom" is treated as a civics textbook while shit I lost my train of thought.

Just give it some time. Wait until he invades a country or punches a baby or smokes crack on the whitehouse lawn and then we'll talk. Christ it's a STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION if nothing else.
 
rocketeer said:
why is this a step in the right direction?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by 'this'. If you mean the maximum wage, it is a step in the right direction because it provides a disincentive for executives to seek government bailouts.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Depends on what you mean by 'this'. If you mean the maximum wage, it is a step in the right direction because it provides a disincentive for executives to seek government bailouts.

barfo
Click to expand...

Yes, if that were the only affect of it.
 
barfo said:
What other effect does it have?

barfo
Click to expand...

trickle down effect- (rule becomes integrated to more staffers)

snowball effect- goes into other companies, contract companies, etc

brain drain at the top levels of companies

loss of tax revenues from high salaries

less incentive to get to the top and run company well when less compensation at the top
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top