Male Revue = Normal; Banker Pay = Obscene
A little over a year ago we noticed how comfortable we are around male strippers.
We thought about this and realized that our standards of obscenity are such that male strippers are normal but what bankers earn is obscene.
This notion appears to have gained traction, and even theoretical jurisprudential support.
We were reminded of our observation of the new obscenity standards in some articles about how city officials in the twee village of Bell, near LA, earn $800K+. From Bloomberg,
* * *
California law limits the salaries of council members to several hundred dollars a month, depending on the size of the city, according to Hector De La Torre, a state assemblyman from nearby South Gate, who sponsored legislation in 2005 that limits how much council members can get paid from other city-related assignments to $150 a month.
‘Obscene Pay’
De La Torre said that after his bill was passed, Bell’s City Council voted to operate under its own charter, rather than adhere to state laws on how cities should be run.
“It seems obscene to me,” De La Torre said in a telephone interview. “People making $30,000 a year are paying taxes so that their council members can make $80[0],000.”
* * *
The notion of “Obscenity” to limit looting compensation has legal roots in the US Constitutional law for limiting first amendment rights.
Constitutional law is the backstop protecting the individual against the tyranny of the group; and so usually you need a really super good reason to squelch a single person’s Constitutional rights for the benefit of the country.
But it happens. Freedom of speech is limited by the obscenity laws, and these are largely local. You can’t normally open up a strip club next to an elementary school, even if most of the mothers drop the kids off in their workout thongs before going to pole class.
And so the concept of obscenity is now catching on as a government march-in right against “obscene” compensation, which is rooted in the 5th Amendment right to own property.
Again, Ms. Tavakoli provides a thorough run-down of the 5th Amendment property ownership vs. Obscene banker pay, and refers to Mr. Saucier, a Parisian lawyer, interviewed by the finance broadcaster Max Keiser:
. . .Saucier explains that labeling a financial institution “obscene” is an effective social deterrent. U.S. citizens have the right to own property and to make money. We also enjoy freedom of speech, up to a point. The Supreme Court stated that when “art” becomes obscene–and the court worked hard to define what is meant by “obscene”–it is no longer considered art and does not enjoy the protection of freedom of speech.
The most highly compensated players in finance are hedge fund managers earning $1 billion to $4 billion per year. Saucier says that when you see someone making money–billions of dollars a year in bonuses by exploiting the subprime crisis–then one can take the view that part of the remuneration is obscene. The same can be said for many bank CEOs, who may earn somewhat less economic compensation, but enjoy countless valuable perks.
* * *
Incidentally, the Thunder from Down Under or American Storm are the two male strip groups that were big in Vegas, or at least the Macy’s in one of the malls. We saw them pretty much fully clothed, and couldn’t imagine possibly being offended by anything they did unless they somehow collected $4B in tips by betting against their customers.
It would be really great if these hale and hardy “male revue” fellows could be recruited to be spokesmodels for the banker-pay-as-obscene movement. Now that would get some press.
Comments