To: mcg404 who wrote (8128 ) 1/15/2003 4:52:40 PM From: GraceZ Read Replies (2) | Respond to Jobs always have market values on every level including the executive level. When CEOs were recruited to run dot coms (which turned out to be dot bombs) they recruited people who were successful, who had great futures at well established companies. regardless of their efforts . Investors used to know this, that IPOs had a high failure rate, but they forgot and had to learn all over again. If the person taking this job left a sure thing for a risky thing then it comes as no surprise that they demanded far more compensation to take the job and they wanted that compensation up front because the candidates knew that a highly visible failure might essentially end their career and their ability to earn a living. Because the public was in a mood to throw money, these companies were able to pay the market rate. Someone less qualified might have been available at a cheaper price to take the company to ruin, but that wasn't the intent. Most were hired to take the company to success and in a few cases they have. It was a lottery in which most lost and a few lucky ones won.What do you mean by ‘pass laws’? Maybe you are thinking of this in a more narrow sense than me but I can think of things (tariffs, taxes, credits, currency manipulation) by which government can change the economics of trade to make it more or less profitable, and thereby impact the ability of domestic companies to make a profit paying a US wage? I can think of some situations where that would make sense. (tariffs, taxes, credits, currency manipulation) . Almost everything the government does to preserve US jobs results in higher employment cost even if their intentions are to protect those jobs.
