Some other thoughts:
In a free market, each individual is selling their skills on the open market to the highest bidder. Individuals with the best skills are paid the highest in their profession. If given multiple job offers who would accept the lowest one? Very few.
It seems to me that what bothers most people is that the limit is not predetermined, but set by the highest bidder. Perhaps their pay should be tied to what profits their companies make - that I agree with. But that should be up to the company and not the Gov't. A free market will correct the imbalances if the Gov't didn't bail them out. Those companies where the compensation was out of line would all be gone, like Chrysler, GM and some of the banks.

What about professional athletes, movie stars and other entertainers? Should Oprah make a gazillion dollars to sit her ass n a couch and talk? How about an actor or actress that makes $10-20 million per movie or a singer that makes a deal with a company for a tour? Look at Michael Jackson's rumored $400 million deal. That is insane.

You are correct - Perhaps you noticed - regulation is not real high on my list. A safety net is one thing, a ceiling is whole different thing.

Bullshit: you want it one way but not another.

A ceiling IS a safety net for the lower paid employees.

Never mind, this is going to turn into another "don't read a word they say just argue a lot" bunch of crap.

And what the fuck, for someone who didn't want to discuss living wages why are you bringing up such freaks of nature as Oprah and Michael? Reeaacccchhhhhhinggggg...

I agree that there are some valid arguments supporting pay limits. I am worried about a precedent being set for the Govt. to limit compensation for anyone for any reason.
A free market will self correct and all those people would be outta work right now and their stocks and compensation would be worth zero. Thats what should have happened, IMO.

The best of intentions to limit the top so that the middle or bottom can share more of the pie is a failed theory. I think :)

I don't think it's so much about sharing the pie, I think it's about letting the lower earners keep the crusty crumbs they're getting.

My apologies to Pie. ;)

Dammit, Shawnee, I am on a diet and now you are making me want a pop-tart!

And pie!

oh ok. I'll just take what politicians say at face value then.

So, when presented with a plan that you do not like, and when given arguments as to why you could be incorrect, the best response is to say "I don't believe them anyway"?

Really, you must get over your PTSD from 8 years of abuse and lies at the hands of the Bush administration.

Sorry to channel tw, but if it walks like a duck...

;)

No, but read what they say and hold them to it, instead of railing against what you think they secretly intend to do.

In this case, the existing laws already give them the power, but they are trying to figure out how to write rules that will prevent the financial segment from returning to business as usual when the economy recovers, without impeding that recovery.
After all, the same people will be running the financial segment, people that have been steeped in a culture of greed, and to hell with sound practices/stockholders/country.

If you leave your kid alone and he burns half the house down, next time you go out you sure as hell better get a baby sitter.

...or at the very least hide the fucking matches this time.

Sorry you feel that way S123 - If that is all you got out of what I posted, then we'll agree to disagree.
Perhaps you could look at it and just trust them cuz they say its all good. I'm A LOT more skeptical than that. I have learned NOT to trust any politician nor what they say - especially over the last 8 years and beyond.
For examples - "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." or take your pick of the last five stories about torture that Pelosi has trotted out, just to mention a couple - there are hundreds more from the R's too.

I did not say a damn thing about believing them or trusting them. You are turning your initial argument that basically says that any kind of oversight over top pay wages is not right into "well, I don't believe them. Hmmmph."

I did not fuck that woman is a far cry from WMDs though, while you're worrying about lies.

My argument hasn't changed at all - I don't like the Gov't determining how much people can make. I still feel that way.
Additionally, I did not change my argument at all. Bruce quoted specific text and I responded to him.

I also said:
I never made any accusation towards you. Sheesh - you ARE channeling tw

But minimum wage is OK. Explain to me again the difference, keeping in mind my points about rampant-running executives making 5 katrillion a year hurting the viability of the company, which hurts the tiny people.