response 93 of 176:

Mar 14 14:54 UTC 2006

In post-breakup Yugoslavia-that-was, people were being paid in things like
cement blocks by nearly broke factories.  It was time consuming trading them
for food to people who needed the cement blocks or were willing to trade them
to someone else.

response 95 of 176:

Mar 14 18:29 UTC 2006

I shared a watermelon with a schtetl once.

response 97 of 176:

Mar 14 21:45 UTC 2006

Why did you write "your money" in quotes, twenie?  Do you in fact believe that
people who earn income do not "own" / are not entitled to have / keep it?

response 99 of 176:

Mar 16 16:22 UTC 2006

Michigan's minimum wage is going up to $6.95 in October, then $7.15 per 
hour next summer, and $7.40 the following summer, assuming the governor 
signs the bill.  The bill passed unanimously in the state senate, and 
also passed in the House, though not unanimously.

In Michigan, there was (or is) going to be a constitutional amendment 
on the issue.  The Republicans in the legislature voted for the measure 
in hopes of avoiding a big Democratic turnout from supporters of the 
amendment.  The Democrats sponsored the bill.

response 101 of 176:

Mar 16 16:27 UTC 2006

Does your teenage stepdaughter need to find work next year?

response 103 of 176:

Mar 16 16:33 UTC 2006

Why? (if you dont mine me asking)

response 105 of 176:

Mar 16 17:25 UTC 2006

Which demonstrates the insidious nature of such government meddling in 
the economy:  We can identify those who benefit, but can't determine 
the losers in terms of fewer jobs, fewer hours worked, and higher 
prices paid by everybody.

response 107 of 176:

Mar 16 18:31 UTC 2006

Is your teenaged stepdaughter trying to earn her college tuition, John?

response 109 of 176:

Mar 16 18:35 UTC 2006

Yeah, it's SO much cheaper to give people government handouts.

response 111 of 176:

Mar 16 18:56 UTC 2006

ok, And?

response 113 of 176:

Mar 16 19:31 UTC 2006

A Gathering Consensus on CEO Pay 
The Wall Street Journal 03/15/06  
by Alan Murray  
(Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company Inc.) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
What do super-investor Warren Buffett, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and labor boss
Gerald McEntee have in common?

Not much, except this: They all believe executive compensation in the U.S.
has gotten out of hand.

The roughly $185 million that North Fork Bancorp Chief Executive Officer John
Kanas may pocket for selling his company to Capital One is just the latest
cause for outrage. At least in his case, it's a reward for a job well-done.
More galling are payouts to people who were booted -- former Morgan Stanley
chief Philip Purcell, who was given $44 million plus a pension, or the fired
chief of Hewlett-Packard Co., Carly Fiorina, who was given more than $21
million.

Forget the old maxim about nothing succeeding like success, wrote Mr. Buffett
in this year's letter to his shareholders. Today, in the executive suite, 
the all-too-prevalent rule is that nothing succeeds like failure.

Recognizing the problem, smart companies are increasingly turning to pay for
performance. But even that approach has its pitfalls. Performance measures
are seldom made public -- for competitive reasons, companies say -- and are
open to manipulation.

Take the case of Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli, quickly becoming a favorite
target of critics of excessive pay. A footnote in his company's 2004 proxy
statement says his long-term incentive pay will be calculated by looking at
total return to shareholders over the three-year performance period and
comparing that to an established peer group of retailers. By that measure,
he has bombed. Home Depot's stock has fallen since he took over in December
2000; meanwhile, rival Lowe's shares have soared.

But in last year's proxy, the footnote changed. Mr. Nardelli now gets his
incentive pay if the company achieves specified levels of average diluted
earnings per share -- a measure by which Home Depot looks far more successful.
Shareholders may not be better off, but Mr. Nardelli is.

It is in the shareholders' best interest for the company's CEO to be focused
on such factors as driving operating performance, which is believed to
ultimately create shareholder value, Home Depot said, adding: Mr. Nardelli's
compensation is consistent with the company's philosophy of attracting and
retaining the highest performing executive leadership.

In fairness to Mr. Nardelli, who trained at General Electric, he has by many
accounts done a good job cleaning up Home Depot and boosting its profit
margins. Colin McGranahan, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein, says that while
shareholders may not have gained under his tenure, they would have been worse
off without him.

For that, he deserves a decent living. But does he really deserve last year's
total pay of $27 million-plus, including several million dollars to cover tax
payments on a forgiven loan? His board may think so -- though it's worth
noting that the board includes Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, who headed
the New York Stock Exchange's board compensation committee that decided Dick
Grasso's pay.

Consider this: Before coming to Home Depot, Mr. Nardelli lost out to Jeff
Immelt in the competition to run General Electric. Now he takes home a bigger
paycheck than Mr. Immelt. Since joining Home Depot, he's underperformed rival
Lowe's. Yet he makes more than Lowe's CEO. Little wonder he leads the hit list
of overpaid CEOs assembled by Gerald McEntee's American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees.

Many CEOs think that we ink-stained wretches of the press feel underpaid for
our brilliance and wallop their pay packages as a result. They're half right.
But outrage is spreading far beyond the usual labor unions, liberal activists
and their journalist allies. I talked on Monday to Coleman Stipanovich,
executive director of the Florida State Board of Administration, which manages
more than $150 billion in retirement funds. His chief trustee is Republican
Gov. Jeb Bush. He says that during his review this year, the governor
specifically brought up executive compensation, and said he is irate about
what he sees going on. As a result, Mr. Stipanovich is now developing his own
hit list.

Change is under way. Boards are getting tougher. They now require compensation
consultants to report directly to them, not to company management. Proposed
Securities and Exchange Commission rules requiring clearer disclosure of
executive compensation may help, too. And the lavish separation packages given
to Mr. Purcell and Ms. Fiorina were the exceptions last year, not the rule.

But change may not be happening fast enough to stop the gathering opposition.
If the pace doesn't quicken, companies may find it forced down their throats.

response 115 of 176:

Mar 16 19:38 UTC 2006

A minimum wage will almost always cause some jobs to go away. The real 
question is how many? If the demand curve for labor is mostly 
inelastic, then the number of jobs will be few and generally not enough 
to offset the benefit of the increased wage to workers. In markets with 
monopsonies, a minimum wage will actually increase the number of jobs.