Nice conservative people should not have to defend the CEOs who are taking their bonuses in bad times such as these, while they lay off their workers in the name of "survival."
Not sure I understand the term,"nice conservative" but I think I understand the basis of your post.
I am not defending professional athlete pay, by the way. I was simply explaining, as i understand it,
the basic contracts that are in current vogue.
I agree, they are entertainers. They also have very short careers so salaries can seem lopsided when, in reality, they are not.
I think,as perhaps Rosewood said, they are teetering on obscene.
Being entertainers, however, a few can, and should, demand and receive compensation commensurate with their contribution and return on investment.
Tom Cruise acting abilities are not worth $20 million per movie, except, of course, they
are as long as he delivers the box office.
Tom Hanks will not deliver a $50 million performance in the sequel to the "Da Vinci Code" except ,of course, he brings more than the performance.
I am a sports freak but seldom participate as an "audience" anymore for professional sports.
My business partner and I and my brother in law have some fun, follow, and attend collegiate sports and have formed a foundation,
aimed mainly and for the time being, at high school baseball players who are tempted to move into professional baseball instead of
attending college. The foundation will scholarship the player if he attends at least two years of college. Professional baseball is no place for a seventeen year old.
The same thing has happened to professional theatre.
Talk about "elite".
Who can afford $150, $200 or sometimes $300 or more to see a Broadway show?
Damn few.
And yet, and let me be VERY clear about this, it is not the actors who are driving the costs and it
is not the investors who are reaping outrageous greedy profits,it is the
various antiquated and just plain stupid union rules and contracts that make
a simple revival of a Chekhov play, (in the public domain by the way) cost
millions of dollars to produce with little or no hope of even breaking even.
So you and I and others will never agree on this whole bail out thing.
I think the bail out is appropriate in some cases and not in others.
I don't believe that the Senate or Congress is out to "bust unions" , however.
One of the major screw ups that the management you guys so love to bash, is
that they ever agreed to such nonsense as "job banking" "lifetime private health care",
and pension plans that did not have even a toenail tied to reality.
Most CEO bonus's, and yes some are absurd, are reported in dollars but are
actually given in stock options. Stock of the company for whom the CEO works.
Many, if not most, of the bonus' currently in discussion evaporated long ago.
Again, one can not apply one explanation/definition to all cirrcumstances.
The financial markets work in a completely different manner and the compensation
structure is different ( and easily abused and, yes, close to obscene)
On the other hand, many of these guys generate, legitimately, millions of dollars
for their clients and themselves. The majority of which, by the way, is taxed, state, local, and federal combined
at well over 50%.
That leaves them with quite a bit of money, of course, and I know that many will not be satisfied until all that
"excess" money is once again taxed at above 90%.
State and local,and even federal, tax revenues are going to sorely miss these guys.
