POST SCRIPTS

I have no reason to defend the high pay and bonuses given to upper management at these companies but the figures you give don't offer a complete picture when it comes to employee wage costs to the companies.

The figures apparently don't include benefits and other costs which, when averaged, work out to about $79.00 per hour. (I don't know if overtime is included in that figure) Multiply $79.00 by thousands of workers (and total hours worked per year) to better understand the comparitive cost to the company.

The foreign car maker (in America) equivilent is about $48.00 on average.

Union demands have over the years had a big impact on the viability of these companies. Union demands, at least in the early years, helped to drive the higher paid employee packages ever higher...they also drove the pricetag for the cars higher which helped to make the companies less competitive in a market severely pressured by foreign competition.

If we're going to continue to complain about greed and avarice as a debiliating factor we need to acknowledge that it began in the minds of union bosses.

It would be wonderful if the American people would learn from this experience and begin to look to themselves to increase their own fortunes rather than thinking they can continue to pick the pockets of others. It would be wonderful if company owners and investors would sufficiently and equitably compensate all employees. It would be wonderful if government would butt out.

Not holding my breath.

Tina, you have added another facet that needs to be said. I'm glad you were able to find the salary benefit costs for labor, I couldn't at the time or I would have inserted it too. There are no innocent parties here, management and unions have both been greedy and the taxpayers, consumers and stockholders have all suffered for it.

GM also produces at a 25% slower rate than it's overseas competition and they use about 50% more labor. That's a bad formula for success.

Jack do you know whether or not foreign car makers suffer under the extra burden of retirement benefits plans? I know that is a very big expense for the American car companies.

"Had minimum wage since 1990 kept pace with the increases in CEO pay, minimum wage today would be $23.03 an hour instead of just $5.15. And the average production worker would be making $110,126 a year instead of $27,460."

Yes and the average cost of living would require $110,126 a year.

It is no business of mine what a CEO or a laborer make, and insinuating that one is somehow evil, or wrong merely because of their paycheck is a not so veiled attempt as class warfare.

An employer pays their employees exactly what they are willing to work for.

Yes Tina foreign car companies do have that problem too, some more and some less, except when there is national healthcare and then the burden is transfered to the country.

The problem here is in the overall costs. Our insurance premiums are very high because we have an expensive, quality medical system second to none. And we also have too many medical malpractice suits that drive up insurance costs along with everything else. We have far more lawyers suing people here than anywhere else in the world, but even so I would say most of medical expenses (which translates to insurance premiums) are found in administration overhead.

Our worker compensation costs are extremely high compared to the rest of the world.

American car companies have it pretty rough when it comes to the overall cost to employee people, thanks to unions mostly, but government too! Germany, France and England are right up there with us too.

However, Honda and Toyota have managed to cope with our labor costs by locating in areas that were non-union and glad to get the employment and are happy with high wages for their area, which would be low in Detroit! They turn out products faster than the Big 3 which makes them more cost effective.

As for anonymous' comment "employees are worth exactly what they are willing to work for" well,that isn't entirely true. Employees are worth what they bring to the table for the employer. That employer must justify the employee's continued employment and wages. This is required to be competitive and stay in business.

In Detroit there were too many expensive hands creating too little profit. They were not competitive.

There isn't a reason in the world that minimum wage (or any wage) should keep pace with CEO pay or any other pay...university presidents, for instance...or sports figures, movie stars,or garbage collectors in SF.

Minimum wage is a stupid law as far as I'm concerned and serves only to drive up other wages and costs which leave the min wage worker right back where he started paying more for goods and services he needs...and often with fewer jobs opportunities. Better for him to realize that bettering his lot in life is up to him...give him incentive to get an education or develop other skills in order to move up the pay ladder. Min wage also places undue burden on some small businesses and restaurants.

Re: Minimum wage v CEO salaries

Tina, that was not the point and I happen to agree with you on minimum wage. It is stupid.

Using the comparision between CEO wages and minimum wage was to illustrate scale, thats all. Like parking a bi-lane next to a jumbo jet, and in that case it wouldn't mean we should be more supportive of bi-planes. It just meant look at the difference. Look how big jumbo jets have gotten. But, if a jumbo jet only hauled 10 times as much as bi-plane and cost 1000 times more, I would question the value of the jumbo jet. I.e. CEO's making 90 million while driving their company into the ground...not worth it. Over compensated. Got too greedy. Bad for shareholders. Bad for the company. We're seeing a phenomena of greed at the top...dangerous, makes poor business sense... needs to be hauled in by stockholders, board of directors, etc.

"Using the comparision between CEO wages and minimum wage was to illustrate scale, thats all. Like parking a bi-lane next to a jumbo jet..."

Then another comparison would take into account, schooling, hours worked, test scores, level of responsibility, previous job success, etc. etc. etc.

"...and in that case it wouldn't mean we should be more supportive of bi-planes."

By only taking into account salaries Jack, the inference is quite clear. Poor bi planes, the Jumbo jets are taking all their money! And they contribute to global warming!

Jack, if the shareholders are upset with the management of their company, then it is incumbent on the share holders to speak.

What is "too greedy" Jack? Define it for me?

It is an easy accusation to throw out there, not so easy to define, except in the most general terms that big rich executives who were offered huge remuneration are "Greedy" for excepting them, while people who wish to take that money and bestow it upon themselves for no greater reason other than they feel its should be theirs are called social activists.

Greed is desiring the wealth of another for which you have not worked...its not excepting an offer of money to which you have agreed to work.

We are butchering the English language in an attempt to win people over by appealing to their emotions and greed rather than their logic.

A worker is no more entitled to a dollar over what they are willing to work for, than an exec is. And an employer is not "duty bound" to pay anything more than what the worker is willing to work for.

As for third party types, always wishing to mettle in the business of other with our notions of economic justice, perhaps we would be better to let companies and in fact individuals directly related to the situation take care of it themselves.

Jack I whole heatedly support your right to bring this up in any of the shareholder meetings to which you are entitled to attend. And I know that if you feel that this is the source of their failure, you will do so.

But what good does it do to present such an argument to which people will come to socialist or collectivist conclusions quite opposite to the ones you intend.

Unfortunately we're not focusing on the main points in my article or my follow up comments.

That is: GM is in trouble and there is a reason. The most basic reason that we can conclude is that pre-recession, GM was not turning out a popular enough product with a reasonable profit margin to be competitive in the market place.

That's it...and now we have to ask why, because GM, Ford and Chrysler are asking for taxpayer money.

This takes us to the management at the Big 3 and they must take the bulk of the blame. Like Harry Truman said, "The buck stops here." And they are getting the big bucks so they should be most accountable. I DON"T CARE ABOUT THEIR SALARIES as long as they earn them. But, if they are not able to lead the company effectively they are not worth what they are being paid, whatever it is! That's a main point I want you to hang on to here.
It's fundamental to everything I believe in when it comes to CEO and executive compensation.

If the employees are working at maximum effort (and there's no evidence presented to say they are not) in the manner prescribed by their employers they can't be faulted for not working hard enough. It might not be effective enough, but that is another issue typically address at management.

If the wage earners are over compensated, is that the fault of the workers or the management? Or is it their union? The UAW can be faulted if they have the clout to extort unrealistic wages and benefits from a terrorized executive staff, but that case really hasn't been made yet, but for arguments sake lets say its true and the unions are to blame.

It's a side issue, but since we are now getting into side issues anyway, most of the workers at GM entered the workforce long after the union was in place and many of the current benefits had been negotiated between labor and management. So do we undue all those labor contracts and force unions to go away? What will be the effect if we do? I don't know, but in bankruptcy it could happen. It could be a union busting, contract breaking time and GM would be forced to restructure or go to the next step...breakup. Nobody wants that! Nobody, not the unions, not labor, not taxpayers...nobody wants GM to be wiped out, but we do want solutions and right now something has to be forced on somebody to get this company fixed! That was also a main point.

Nick asks, regarding CEO compensations, "What is "too greedy" Jack? Define it for me?" I'm advised this is easy to say, but not easy to define.

We shall see.

Nick, I'm sure you know what greed is, but since this is a debate I will take the bait, walk into trap and hopefully emerge somewhat intact afterwards! lol

There are basically two kinds of greed in my world that I'll try to define and the first is quite easy! This is the Christian version of greed and the answer is found in Luke 12:15. Told you it was easy!

If one is obsessed with obtaining material things the Bible says they are out of step with God. The Bible clearly says God did not create us for the sole purpose of obtaining material goods. Luke 12:15, "And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consistent not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth".

Now let’s look at the second type of greed which is harder to define.

This is focused on those CEO's at big companies and corporations. The worldly view of greed is excessive consumption and acquisition of wealth (items of value). I'll define "excessive" in just a sec, CONT- where a desire to obtain more and more money or material possessions actually winds up hurting their bottom line, hurting their personal and corporate image, hurts the consumers by denying them fair value and forces them to abandon being loyal consumers of a product they once enjoyed and to look elsewhere for "value". This is the end result of greed.

Greed is therefore something that is first self destructive...in fact this might be the very definition I'm looking for!!! Greed is defined when consumption becomes self-destructive, then it is by logic...excessive!

Should a CEO's salary be absolutely unlimited if there is no force powerful enough to restrain them until the company is in ruins? Is there NO ethical or moral duty or business obligation expected or incumbent upon the CEO to restrain "excesses" for the good of the company unless there is objection by the board of directors or stockholders? Does it take a broke company to determine when the CEO has gone too far and is guilty of being greedy?

Is entirely up to the shareholders of a company to define greed and set limits? If it is I would say the shareholders of GM have not done a very good job at defining excesses. I think shareholders don't have that power. I think shareholders are often too trusting to lame excuses. Now they are being punished for their impotence by share values declining to pennies on the dollar for what they were once worth only last year!

Now everybody is about to suffer, even people who had nothing to do with GM, because GM's business model was broke for too long and nobody from the top to the bottom was capable of forcing a change for the better. And somewhere in all this mess was greed!

I'm not quite done with greed! Greedy individuals are harmful to society as their motives often appear to disregard the welfare of others, i.e. employees and the company business model. Was GM harmful to individuals and does its collapse now threaten to be harmful to our society? You betcha!

A socialist or a communist might argue if one person is to increase in wealth then somebody else must be decreasing in wealth. This is an old line and it is assuming that a market economy is a zero sum game. It's not. And that's not part of my thinking either, but it is part of the class warfare so often used by liberals. I kinda got unfairly accused of going there, but that was not my intention nor was it stated.

What was stated in this article and in many past articles on this subject is, "value". Wages must be in proportion to value. Is $200 million a year fair value for the CEO of Disney? It is if we can attribute he good works to a return on the salary invested in him. Just being present during times of success based on the works of others is not a factor of fair value. You can't take the companies net and say a CEO is worth 5%, but I'm getting slightly off track.

Let’s get back to worker wages. Nick, you say a person is worth exactly what they are willing to work for. I said that is not quite true. There are many extenuating circumstances that might compel a person work for far less.

A recent study conducted by top business graduate schools and reported by Bob Marshall, contributing writer for the Fordyce Letter, reports that in the U.S., an employee’s value to their company is usually set at five times their salary. So, for example, if your job opening calls for a salary of $50K, then the value that person should bring to your company is $250K per year.

Were the workers at GM worth their wages based upon the above study? Better yet, were the executives at GM worth their wages, they earned far more? As the saying goes, too whom much is given, much is expected. What value did they bring to the table? Was the CEO at GM worth his wages of $14 million a year while his company lost $52,000 a minute? We have a right to ask these questions now because GM, Ford and Chrysler have come with hat in hand looking for a bailout from the US taxpayers and frankly the taxpayers aren't real thrilled about it.

PS The board of directors are supposed to be a watch dog for excesses in management, but they are compromised. Large portions of shareholders are often big funds and they are reluctant to say anything because they also have an incestious relatioship. This is how they get away with giving themselves huges raises they don't deserve and without being accountable until it's too late and the damage is done.

Better every corporation in America adopt a new voluntary salary structure. This would be a stipend plus a commission based on a 3 year average of what the company nets after all expenses. If the company loses money one year, they have two more years to turn it around. No profit...no commission. Salary ceiling...there is none!!! They can make all they want...on commission!!!! A win-win. No more $100 million bucks paid to losers who ruin their companies!!!

You have the floor...

A few thoughts:

"But, if a jumbo jet only hauled 10 times as much as bi-plane and cost 1000 times more, I would question the value of the jumbo jet. I.e. CEO's making 90 million while driving their company into the ground...not worth it."

You're right, Jack, we the tax payers are obliged to question. All I ask is that it's all put in perspective.

CEO pay has been roiling around in the news for a long time (whether or not companies are successful) so I believe it's been highly politicized...union pay and union tactics have been defended and praised. We aren't getting a clear picture either way.

A company can have a winning plan in place, workers doing a fine job, and then the company is blindsided by environmental legislation or gas prices that throw sales in the tank and plans out the window. These are not errors the CEO made...they are examples of government getting in the way. Pelosi's refusal to drill made sales tank just as surely as the high gas prices did. A few more years of available fuel might have made the transition plans work. But just as in the housing debacle and the bans and limits on drilling, government is causing problems in the industry that could have been avoided. More reasonable demands that give the effected companies time to adjust would work for everyone but government never considers the unintended consequences of their own ambitious plans.

The fun and games going on in Washington in this mess is really about politics. I don't know to what degree the companies are playing ball or groveling. Neither is a good position to take. I suppose they are driven in part by the thousands of other companies that will be effcted if these companies fail.

The BIG thing people need to take away from tis is that government involvement and intrusion is the culprit. Companies fail when CEO's do a bad job and when workers don't do a good job and when markets take a dive. When government interferes whole sectors (indeed whole markets) are placed in jeopardy.

Your solution sounds like it might be a good one. Suppos any companies are considering it and would current law even allow it?

"beware of covetousness"

This applies to union tactics. They started out as advocates but before long the game was not in helping mistreated or underpaid workers but how much of the company profits they could "get". This drove nonunion wages higher, including CEO pay, and car prices higher (no help to the public or the industry) And they did use extortion and intimidation both toward the company and toward others who would do the work.

As for CEO pay being excessive, it may or may not be. Big dollar amounts always look and sound extreme to people who don't have access to large amounts of money. A few million doesn't look the same to someone who regularly writes checks in the billions. What's the gross sales amount for big car companies in an average year? I'll bet that's a BIG number. What is the total expense amount for non-executive employee pay and benefits? I'll bet that's also a very big number.

Politicians and union heads know they can use CEO pay to encourage envy and covetousness in the public (for votes and increased union participation). This underhanded tactic might just be a deadlier sin than is individual greed. These people are inciting whole populations to be covetous.

Well Jack, first let me say that after re reading my first comment, i found it a bit condescending...and that was not my intent so I apologize if you found it the same.

But returning to the debate...

Jack I think that using the Bible will hurt your argument for than helping it...

You are judging someone based off of your perception of their desires, not just their actions. Furthermore, I believe you are emphasizing on a set of people based off their income which has nothing to do with "greed".

Whether I make 2 dollars an hour or 2 million says absolutely nothing about how "greedy" I am. At least not in a free market system. It could very well, and almost centrally would mean that in a centrally planned, or socialist system.

Greed and covetousness are closely linked in the respect that they include a strong unjustified desire for something that you haven't earned.

While I think you make several good points, it appears that you are dressing your arguments in a "populist" manner, which I don't think is necessary.

Jack: "Let’s get back to worker wages. Nick, you say a person is worth exactly what they are willing to work for. I said that is not quite true. There are many extenuating circumstances that might compel a person work for far less."

Jack the statement I issued was a shameless "totem" how could it not be true? How can you work for "more" than your worth? Maybe I should have prefaced it with "in a free market" system, but the I think the statement stands. How can you work for less than what you labor is willing to get you?

Jack: "A recent study conducted by top business graduate schools and reported by Bob Marshall, contributing writer for the Fordyce Letter, reports that in the U.S., an employee’s value to their company is usually set at five times their salary. So, for example, if your job opening calls for a salary of $50K, then the value that person should bring to your company is $250K per year."

Jack your labor has to be worth more to some one than it takes to pay you...unless you're in government. But that doesn't contribute to your argument, because the worth of your labor is determined not by your self, or even how much you produce, but the scarcity of your skill. Your "worth" is not determined by how important your job is, but by how scarce your skills and abilities are.

You may be able to make your company 5 times what they pay you...but if the average is 6 times what the company pays you, than your going to make less than most. Furthermore, we have to look closely at what that means...

Labor is just one of many costs to a company. If you produced exactly what you consumed in a company, than it would go out of business. You HAVE to produce at a rate above what it costs to maintain your labor, because your production is also covering R&D, expansion, loss form theft, taxation, and a hundred other costs.

Jack "Were the workers at GM worth their wages based upon the above study? Better yet, were the executives at GM worth their wages, they earned far more? As the saying goes, too whom much is given, much is expected. What value did they bring to the table? Was the CEO at GM worth his wages of $14 million a year while his company lost $52,000 a minute? We have a right to ask these questions now because GM, Ford and Chrysler have come with hat in hand looking for a bailout from the US taxpayers and frankly the taxpayers aren't real thrilled about it."

The real question is not whether or not we have a right to "ask these questions", but whether or not government has a right to redistribute our wealth to a failing company? I would give that question an emphatic NO!

I don't want to be put into a position to tell executives how to run a multi billion dollar company, because unlike some people in congress, I don't think I'm qualified.

Jack "Politicians and union heads know they can use CEO pay to encourage envy and covetousness in the public (for votes and increased union participation). This underhanded tactic might just be a deadlier sin than is individual greed. These people are inciting whole populations to be covetous."

I agree 100 percent! But not because I have a problem with organized labor; but because I have a problem with politicians attempting to tip the legal balance in favor of one over the other.

Employers and laborers who run to government for protection or handouts are the truly greedy and covetous ones; exceeded only by politicians that will use their greed to feed their own.

"Well Jack, first let me say that after re reading my first comment, I found it a bit condescending...and that was not my intent so I apologize if you found it the same."

REPLY: No need to apologize, I did not take it that way at all. I thought you made well reasoned points and you have done so again here, however I just see it a little differently and I have interjected where we see it differently in the following: END

"But returning to the debate...

Jack I think that using the Bible will hurt your argument more than helping it...

You are judging someone based off of your perception of their desires, not just their actions. Furthermore, I believe you are emphasizing on a set of people based off their income which has nothing to do with "greed".

REPLY: Nope, I'm not judging, just reporting what a higher authority said. Remember, I offered two versions of how one defines greed. The Bible has a definition of greed and we can either accept it or reject it. This is only a Biblical reference point and since I can't take any credit for it, I can't be held liable for it either! lol

I offered my second version and that is where I am more open to criticism. END

Whether I make 2 dollars an hour or 2 million says absolutely nothing about how "greedy" I am. At least not in a free market system. It could very well, and almost centrally would mean that in a centrally planned, or socialist system.

REPLY: It's not what you make, it's how you make it and what you value was to others that sets you apart. END

Greed and covetousness are closely linked in the respect that they include a strong unjustified desire for something that you haven't earned.

While I think you make several good points, it appears that you are dressing your arguments in a "populist" manner, which I don't think is necessary.

REPLY: It would be easier if had made a populist argument because clearly the American people are angry at the unjustified high salaries of CEO's in corporate America. END

Jack: "Let’s get back to worker wages. Nick, you say a person is worth exactly what they are willing to work for. I said that is not quite true. There are many extenuating circumstances that might compel a person work for far less."

Jack the statement I issued was a shameless "totem" how could it not be true? How can you work for "more" than your worth? Maybe I should have prefaced it with "in a free market" system, but the I think the statement stands. How can you work for less than what you labor is willing to get you?

REPLY: You can appoint yourself your own salary by virtue of being the boss and you need not support it by any rational connection to value. END

Jack: "A recent study conducted by top business graduate schools and reported by Bob Marshall, contributing writer for the Fordyce Letter, reports that in the U.S., an employee’s value to their company is usually set at five times their salary. So, for example, if your job opening calls for a salary of $50K, then the value that person should bring to your company is $250K per year."

Jack your labor has to be worth more to some one than it takes to pay you...unless you're in government.

REPLY: On that we agree. END

But that doesn't contribute to your argument, because the worth of your labor is determined not by your self, or even how much you produce, but the scarcity of your skill. Your "worth" is not determined by how important your job is, but by how scarce your skills and abilities are.

REPLY: This assumes facts not in evidence. You're saying (for example) because there are only 648 CEO's in US companies of major scale, there must be only something near to that amount, 650-700, that justified their salary because their leadership expertise is in such limited supply. I submitted that arriving at a Fortune 500 company as a CEO is as much by fate as it is by skill and education.

There are hundreds of thousands among us who would be every bit as good as those who sit in high places, were it not for some minute difference or preference that caused life to take a different path. END

You may be able to make your company 5 times what they pay you...but if the average is 6 times what the company pays you, than you're going to make less than most. Furthermore, we have to look closely at what that means...

REPLY: But, they don't make a mere 5 times, they make millions whether the company turns a profit or not. They can completely undue the 5 times value theory used for mere workers. END

Labor is just one of many costs to a company. If you produced exactly what you consumed in a company, than it would go out of business. You HAVE to produce at a rate above what it costs to maintain your labor, because your production is also covering R&D, expansion, loss form theft, taxation, and a hundred other costs.

REPLY: Agree. END

Jack "Were the workers at GM worth their wages based upon the above study? Better yet, were the executives at GM worth their wages, they earned far more? As the saying goes, too whom much is given, much is expected. What value did they bring to the table? Was the CEO at GM worth his wages of $14 million a year while his company lost $52,000 a minute? We have a right to ask these questions now because GM, Ford and Chrysler have come with hat in hand looking for a bailout from the US taxpayers and frankly the taxpayers aren't real thrilled about it."

The real question is not whether or not we have a right to "ask these questions", but whether or not government has a right to redistribute our wealth to a failing company? I would give that question an emphatic NO!

REPLY: I would disagree only to the degree that when it is a matter of national security the government must retain the right to step in to at least attempt to salvage a company. END

I don't want to be put into a position to tell executives how to run a multi billion dollar company, because unlike some people in congress, I don't think I'm qualified.

Jack "Politicians and union heads know they can use CEO pay to encourage envy and covetousness in the public (for votes and increased union participation). This underhanded tactic might just be a deadlier sin than is individual greed. These people are inciting whole populations to be covetous."

REPLY: I don't think they need to do much work to incite the public on this one. END

I agree 100 percent! But not because I have a problem with organized labor; but because I have a problem with politicians attempting to tip the legal balance in favor of one over the other.

Employers and laborers who run to government for protection or handouts are the truly greedy and covetous ones; exceeded only by politicians that will use their greed to feed their own.

REPLY: In the narrow view I would agree, but surely there are exceptions where government can alleviate wrong doing isn't there? For example, the courts are part of government and labor or management can petition the courts for redress of a perceived wrong.

I agree it is generally unhealthy for big companies that get into a jam to run to the government expecting a bailout, but there will be some rare exceptions, national security being a factor. But, how about a business brought to its knees by a natural catastrophe? Would it not be reasonable and responsible for the government to at least offer them temporary aid like we would for citizens hit by a hurricane?

I'm not thrilled to be put in the position of extending GM, Ford or Chrysler some of my money. I want some positive changes to take place to insure that if I give them my money it will have a real chance to do some good and not just delay the inevietable. That's my real focus here. END

Jack: "Nope, I'm not judging, just reporting what a higher authority said. Remember, I offered two versions of how one defines greed. The Bible has a definition of greed and we can either accept it or reject it. This is only a Biblical reference point and since I can't take any credit for it, I can't be held liable for it either! lol"

But my point of contention is not with the statement or its truth. I accept it. I have trouble with the inference you are giving to it as it applies to this particular scenario. A statement can be true, but if misapplied, can be confusing. I am suggesting that my understanding of your argument was predicated in part on the sum of the CEO's pay being a result of "greed". I disagree with such a statement, and so I cant see as to how this verse would be beneficial to your argument.

Jack:" This assumes facts not in evidence. You're saying (for example) because there are only 648 CEO's in US companies of major scale, there must be only something near to that amount, 650-700, that justified their salary because their leadership expertise is in such limited supply. I submitted that arriving at a Fortune 500 company as a CEO is as much by fate as it is by skill and education.

There are hundreds of thousands among us who would be every bit as good as those who sit in high places, were it not for some minute difference or preference that caused life to take a different path."

Does this not also submit facts not in evidence? You are suggesting that there is not a limited pool from which to select executives of a multi billion dollar international company? Who is more qualified, or at least more justifiably entitled to make such a determination? That decision must remain with the stock holders, not government. I may believe my self capable of running anything from a coffee shop to EXXON, but unless I possess the funds necessary to build such a company and run it, then my opinion of my capabilities is second to those who must invest in them. It is a question of risk. Those taking the risk are the ones who have bought the privilege of choosing who will represent them in the companies leadership. Why on earth would we cede this judgment to someone who has not choose to assume risk?

Jack: "It's not what you make, it's how you make it and what you value was to others that sets you apart. END"

Agreed. But why then the emphasis on amounts, when the charachter is what is in question? I understand of course that the amount is certainly intriguing. But when we make the amount, or the position i.e. CEO the enemy rather than properly defining the problem, we cause confusion.

Jack: "It would be easier if had made a populist argument because clearly the American people are angry at the unjustified high salaries of CEO's in corporate America. END"

It is certainly easier, but is it correct? And once again why are the American people angry, and why do they think that CEO's salaries are "unjustified"? And quite frankly, who are the "American people" to say? I certainly don't want "The American people" making arbitrary decisions about the salaries of other workers. The American people is becoming very much like Socrates "zietgiest".

It is the board of directors who determine what a CEO makes. After that CEO has signed a legal and binding contract concerning the extent of his remuneration, it becomes a question of law. s Thomas Sowell points out, there are times when a company determines that it is better to relieve a CEO of his contract rather than keep him on; and rather than go through a costly legal battle, they offer incentive to leave. Much like a person paying his spouse alimony to get a divorce. God help us the day "the American people" start believing it their right to determine "justified wages" for more than just CEO's of companies of which they own no stock, nor have no stake.

Jack: "I would disagree only to the degree that when it is a matter of national security the government must retain the right to step in to at least attempt to salvage a company. END"

This is where we must be very, very careful. Wilson and FDR both used this excuse to interfere in every thing from tariffs to the price of dry cleaning. Simply because there is a neighborhood effect, or even to some degree a discernible national security interest, does not mean government take over is appropriate, or even beneficial. If we begin using this justification inappropriately, we have given socialists all the ammunition they need to press their theories. And they will use it.

GM, Ford and Chrysler don't require a bailout, they require bankruptcy. They are huge companies, with billions in assets and heavy machinery. PG&E did not cease to produce power because it went bankrupt, nor will these companies cease to produce. If we bail them out, we do one of two things. We either pay them for making the same mistakes...or we start putting allot of useless and counter productive legislation which makes them ineffective. Jack if you were the guy writing all the legislation and subsequent rules for receiving a bailout, I would still oppose it, but I would at least feel better that YOU were doing it. But it isn't going to be you Jack. Its going to be Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc.

Jack: "In the narrow view I would agree, but surely there are exceptions where government can alleviate wrong doing isn't there? For example, the courts are part of government and labor or management can petition the courts for redress of a perceived wrong."

Sure, if you separate "wrong doing" form "bad decision making". We are not talking about wrong doing here, or else there wouldn't be as much of a conversation. I'm not advocating letting anyone off for breaking the law. That has never been the point of by argument. What we are discussing is greater government involvement into decision making. A companies fail to profit is not always, nor even usually I would say, a result of "wrong doing". It may be a result of bad decision making, or just a natural shift in supply and demand based off a thousand different factors.

We can not legislate away failure. And when we start to try, we find that we create far more barriers to success than we do avenues to it. It is the old security vs. freedom argument.