re: #83 itellu3times

I know this stuff is over the top and being sponsored by raging lunatics, but this is what we invite when we allow executive pay to become an ongoing problem.

Let’s get some sunlight on the compensation levels in the finance industry, at least, and see what reasonable people think of the situation, how ‘bout that?

Then we can move on to the compensation packages for whatshisname who was head of the NYSE, or the head of Exxon a couple years back, and other headline cases.

OK, let me try to outline some kind of solution that is more market-oriented than outright government prohibitions and unconstitutional taxes. How about some kind of law that stipulates the distribution of compensation within a corporation? There are already laws like that related to 401k funding. OK, the laws are a major pain, but there is also some justice in them, that is aimed at the same kind of abuses we now see in the rest of the compenstation issues.

And all compensation levels above, say, $1m, must be a matter of public record for all corporations, and the totals must be confirmed annually by stockholders. I know this last really doesn’t work because so much stock is held by funds and in street name (and I don’t even vote most of the piddling shares I own in this and that), but hey, at least the mechanism is at least there.

So, let’s see, how would this affect, say, … Rush Limbaugh? Or George Cluney? Well, they aren’t the heads of 100,000 employee organizations. I suppose you’d want to exempt small companies … and then you get the fictions of big companies hiring small companies, as corporate deals are not personal deals. OK, I didn’t say it would be easy, but I think there might be something reasonable along these lines that would be workable. Maybe.

How about it none of your business unless you are are stockholder comrade.