I really had some high hopes that Bam would be making some good choices after seeing many of his appointees. I am a little bit disappointed that Bam has chosen to pull such an unwise political stunt like freezing staff pay in the face of growing recession. Freezing and cutting wages is the worst thing employers can do in such a situation. It makes any recession worse by greatly increasing the reduction in consumer spending and depressing prices even more. Since he is doing it so publicly, other municipal entities and companies are likely to follow his example and it will make a bad situation even worse. While this freeze pay stunt is a common practice among incoming elected officials as a way of appealing themselves to the common voter, in the current economic climate it is a mistake.
Edited, Jan 22nd 2009 9:29pm by fhrugby
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Pay freezes, Bams bad example
Pay freezes, Bams bad exampleFollow
I hope this is a troll post.
Do what now?
Joke or not:
I dunno where you've been, but I think the White House was pretty much the only place left that hadn't frozen or cut wages. There isn't anyone left to jump on the bandwagen.
Quote:
other municipal entities and companies are likely to follow his example
I dunno where you've been, but I think the White House was pretty much the only place left that hadn't frozen or cut wages. There isn't anyone left to jump on the bandwagen.
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Quote:
I hope this is a troll post.
x8
Just as Planned.
I work for state government. We've never had a pay freeze, though our wages are way behind private sector (we get awesome bennies though). We cut jobs and freeze hiring in slim times. We freeze travel, upgrades get put off, etc. We've even had forced shut down days off without pay, and 39 hour work weeks.
I just got a raise. So, did my husband who works for a municipality.
So, I don't know that I can agree that 'everyone' already has.
I just got a raise. So, did my husband who works for a municipality.
So, I don't know that I can agree that 'everyone' already has.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
OP wrote:
Words
I don't care what you think.
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
fhrugby the Wise wrote:
I really had some high hopes that Bam would be making some good choices after seeing many of his appointees. I am a little bit disappointed that Bam has chosen to pull such an unwise political stunt like freezing staff pay in the face of growing recession. Freezing and cutting wages is the worst thing employers can do in such a situation. It makes any recession worse by greatly increasing the reduction in consumer spending and depressing prices even more. Since he is doing it so publicly, other municipal entities and companies are likely to follow his example and it will make a bad situation even worse. While this freeze pay stunt is a common practice among incoming elected officials as a way of appealing themselves to the common voter, in the current economic climate it is a mistake.
Pay freezes and wage cuts or hour cuts in a recession are seen as the better alternative to job losses. Four workers taking a 10 hour reduction in their working week is seen as better than one of them being sacked and not being replaced.
It's the job losses without replacement that are the crippling part of a recession, and the one that hurts both businesses/organisations and consumer spending the worst.
Edited, Jan 23rd 2009 12:34am by Aripyanfar
Aripyanfar wrote:
Pay freezes and wage cuts or hour cuts in a recession are seen as the better alternative to job losses. Four workers taking a 10 hour reduction in their working week is seen as better than one of them being sacked and not being replaced.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
Pay freezes and wage cuts or hour cuts in a recession are seen as the better alternative to job losses. Four workers taking a 10 hour reduction in their working week is seen as better than one of them being sacked and not being replaced.
By his own words, Obama's idea was that by freezing pay for the staff, he'd force them to consider what others are going through a little bit more and do what they could to help. I agree that the net affect won't be much, but at least it gets people thinking that might normally ignore the situation. Besides, the money going to the banks isn't coming directly out of anyone's pocket where as the pay freeze does directly affect individuals on his staff. It's a more significant point, I think.
Elinda wrote:
Meh, the government is doling out our money to banking execs by the trillions, I don't think it's necessary to freeze fed. worker wages to reign in gov. spending. I think it's as much of a publicity stunt as anything and will not likely have much impact on the economy OR gov. spending for either way.
The money wasn't sent to or for the banking execs. The fact that the banking execs get to keep their wages is entirely a side-effect. A side effect of course that is very important to the execs, but that is besides the point.
If a bank folds, all the depositors' money goes "POOF" dissapearing up into the air. Gone. Kaput.
I'm not sure how much of depositors' money was guaranteed in America before this crisis, but if it was like in Australia, it was not much. After the crisis, and to stop the flight of funds out of Australia, it's now something like AU$100,000. Which certainly covers my savings account and my cheque account money. There's only 4 big banks in Australia. Imagine if one of them foulded and a quarter of Australians suddenly lost every cent they had?
But even with a guarantee of $100,000 imagine what that would do to most large businesses, losing almost all the cash they had? Not being able to cover their wages and running costs, and not being able to borrow to cover the next month because right then no-one will lend? The banking bail-outs were NOT bail-outs of the banks. They were bail-outs of the majority of citizens and businesses in the Western world. THEIR money. OUR money. Not "bank" money. Not bank profits.
Aripyanfar wrote:
I'm not sure how much of depositors' money was guaranteed in America before this crisis, but if it was like in Australia, it was not much.
MDenham wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I'm not sure how much of depositors' money was guaranteed in America before this crisis, but if it was like in Australia, it was not much.
That's per bank by the way. So all of us can spread our vast wealth out amongst a couple dozen banks, safe in the knowledge that our money is safe.
Deathwysh wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I'm not sure how much of depositors' money was guaranteed in America before this crisis, but if it was like in Australia, it was not much.
That's per bank by the way. So all of us can spread our vast wealth out amongst a couple dozen banks, safe in the knowledge that our money is safe.
Yeah, I don't know why anyone with enough on-hand cash to surpass the $100k barrier wouldn't have a financial planner to help them keep their assets organized. You can't find enough stocks, bonds, T-bills, domestic and international banks to invest in?
Not at the moment, no.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Not at the moment, no.
Then give some to me, I'll keep it safe.
Recent Visitors: 259
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (259)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Pay freezes, Bams bad example
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC