I don't believe it was Clinton's fault, either. I was trying to point out how political types will use any excuse (i.e. they're Bush's friends!, etc...) to lay blame or take credit for stuff. I'm also guilty of political baiting... However, now that the SEC came up, you could say that the government was lax in ensuring auditors were doing their jobs properly (once again, under the Clinton administration).
How bout under all the presidential administrations...their way of doing business did not just pop-up under Clinton. Before you think I'm biased by sayin that, look back thru all the political threads and see if I have established a position on any of this. I normally stay clear of commenting on politics, but this statement sayin that the government being lax under Clinton is just ignoring that this has been going on a looong time.. "The next person that says shenanigans is getting pistol whipped"
The Treasurer from North Carolina was doing an interview the other night on PBS. His state is one of the largest single shareholders in the S&P. He is obviously a whiz at financials. One of the things that he talked about in regards to problems with the system is the breakdown in the human equation. Unlike companies in the past where the CEO was usually the guy who poored his blood, sweat and tears into actually building the company or someone from the family or inside the business who grew up working in the mail room and on the assembly line before ascending to the boardroom, most CEO's today are hired guns. If they screw up or make mistakes, the result is a huge severance package and a "better luck next time." Not having the weight of desire to see things work because your heart is built into the business is a not insignificant change in the business world. Not only does it drive the approach to running the financial end of the company, it makes employers more responsive to their employees. If the CEO founded the company and built it up over time (or if he/she came from within the company), he very likely knows many of the employees. Believe it or not, there are still company owners out there who know the names of everyone who works for them. As a result, it is a lot tougher to justify laying off hundreds of people to maximize profits. It's easy to tell employe #438432 she has no job, but it's hard to tell Karen Smith that she has to go home to her two children and tell them mommy may need to move them to another city to find work. Putting a human face on the realities behind business often changes our perspective for the better. In addition, prior to the huge increase in single investors in the market, no one actually cheered when companies laid off hundreds or even thousands of employees. Today, there is almost a sigh of relief in the market when a company does that. The assumption is that the company is trimming waste, but the reality is a whole lot of people just lost their jobs. For me, what is most disturbing about the trend in the corporate marketplace (and conversely most satisfying about seeing the crooks prosecuted) is seeming lack of concern over what they are actually doing when they are doing it. I mean, millions spent on parties and private jets and luxury apartments for the CEO's and they are applauded when the send hundreds of employees their pink slips. It's really amazing. Even worse is this... Executive take home pay relative to the lowest paid workers at the firm based on country (from The Economist): Japan: +11 times Germany: +12 times France: +15 times Italy: +20 times Canada: +20 times South Africa: +21 times Britain: +22 times Hong Kong: +41 times Mexico: +47 times Venezuala: +50 times <b>USA: +475 times</b> That is just disgusting. It is one thing to be compensated well. But, how can we continue to justify slashing payroll and laying off employees when the executives who run the company make, on average, 475 times the rate of the lowest-paid employee in the company? Frankly, it sounds like they are laying off the wrong people.
