$280 a month sounds ridiculously cheap... I live in the UK so that would be like me paying £150 a month... that just doesn't happen... Even a single room in a houseshare is going to set you back £300 a month and while I'm aware prices are higher here I'm pretty sure they're not that much higher.

This post was edited by Scaly on Oct 13 2014 02:08pm

Not currently, I'm working in Atlanta this week. I should mention that its split 3 ways (2 roommates, the other 2 are a couple as its only a 2 bedroom) Though even without that its only 500 a month in actual rent ($166 ea?). After that its just us overpaying for things like cable and business class internet because our rent is so stupid cheap. Its just outside the city so its a nice mountain view, but pretty much any brewery or restaurant in the city is only about 7-10 minutes away by car.

Welcome to the South East. Its not really all that rare to find a place around 600 bucks. Was just in San Fran last week and holy fuck I cannot believe the prices people are paying for those crappy homes

This post was edited by Mangix on Oct 13 2014 02:08pm

That makes more sense... I have a 2 bed though and i can't imagine sharing with a couple... That'd suck. I have a lodger and that's bad enough.

Its not too bad, every room has lots of breathing room, and the bedrooms are on opposite sides of the house, and we don't share bathrooms.
Plus I'm really good friends with both of them, rather than just him or her and the other person being an awkward addition.
Its a pretty awesome thing we got going on. Almost everyone I talk to hates either their house, their roommates, or both >.<

We've got the government bailouts throughout the auto industry that rewarded bad behavior and prevented some of the market corrections.
They should have had to reap what they sowed.

That being said, lets look at the CEOs:

Mullally: "Ford had been struggling during the late-2000s recession,returned to profitability under Mulally and was the only American major car manufacturer to avoid a bailout fund provided by the government"

Winterkorn: VW has had RECORD profits

Daimler: google "daimler profits" and see what pops up. excessive breaking stories singing praises about how well they are doing.
"served as the President/CEO of Chrysler Group from mid of 2000 to December 31, 2005, where he was credited with a turnaround of DCX's American operations"

Akerson: In 1996, Akerson was hired to be the chief executive of Nextel. During his tenure as CEO, Nextel's revenues grew from $171.7 million in the year before his arrival to more than $3.3 billion in 1998. General Motors, during Akerson's first year of tenure in 2011, earned a record $7.6 billion in profit off of $150.3 billion in sales

An extremely anecdotal instance of 1 lower paid CEO leading a more successful business means next to nothing.
Nowhere did I saw anytime a person is paid more they will do better.
There are tons of instances of highly paid CEOs bringing their company in a good direction and I believe it should be up to people if they want to pay for their services or not, not a government official.

There will certainly be a variance in performance in any job, not just CEOs.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Oct 14 2014 02:15pm

I liked his end result though, we need to pay people less so they do more.
Lets lower everyone's wages across the board. Minimum wage, 5 dollars? Sounds like a 40% productivity increase to me.

where in here is the information about the great raises that the labor force in the plants made? The foremen, and the rest of the workers who were obviously inspired by these great leaders?

No but what about capital gains over 30 years? I suppose you could adjust the tax structure so that you could "deduct inflation" from capital gains and then treat the rest as income. There's also the aspect of encouraging people to put money into those assets to provide liquidity for the economy.

A year or two ago, I proposed having tax free investment accounts where you are only taxed IF you take it out and use it for personal use. What do you think of that?

How about the tens of billions in unfunded pension and healthcare liabilities the unions should have lost in the GM & Chrysler bankrupticies only to keep them and garner major stakes in the corporations that emerged? That doesn't count for anything?

don't know the specifics here but why would you want all the union workers to lose their benefits that they've paid for all these years over a bankruptcy case? if anything when a company does go down under the employees should have first dibs on the left overs to make sure we don't have a large group of elderly folks with little to no money in their retirement years.