The premise of the article in applying the $500,000 across the board is a distortion of facts. The $500,000 is geared to compensation to CEOs of companies that are asking for bail out. If you don't lead your company to make money, you don't need a multi-million salary while worker's savings plan goes kaput or jobs are lost. . . and then tax payers have to shoulder part of the burden.
To me, I see the $500,000 as a severance package for CEOs of companies in distress, not as a limit to all business CEOs.
Don't read this as an approval or disapproval of political actions, just reaction to the article as written and my feelings of CEO packages in general.
Personally I am of the old school that likes slow but sure gains in investments rather than investments based on emerging markets that reach maturity, cap and collapse. Emerging market investment in the long run is like a long run pyramid scheme.
To me, I see the $500,000 as a severance package for CEOs of companies in distress, not as a limit to all business CEOs.
Don't read this as an approval or disapproval of political actions, just reaction to the article as written and my feelings of CEO packages in general.
Personally I am of the old school that likes slow but sure gains in investments rather than investments based on emerging markets that reach maturity, cap and collapse. Emerging market investment in the long run is like a long run pyramid scheme.
Comment