Obama announces cap on executive pay

[Strauss]

Strauss ya gotta admit that some of the CEO's are/were bloodsuckers

Like any human activity there are those who don't deserve what they are getting. That's not the issue, the issue is who those the bums out? Would you want the federal government telling you how much you earn? Or would you prefer the actual owners of the company making that decision?

 

[Strauss]

Most of my adult life, I worked for large corporations and had acquaintenances with top officers and even some members of the boards (librarians get around). When I asked exactly what was their job, I was told -- "to delegate."

It's not the CEOs or the BODs who do the work (seemed to me that they spent most of their time jerking one another off over luncheons, golf outings and attending meetings in places like Hawaii with their wives and sometimes the entire family).

It's the workers that make the wheels go round and they don't get $25M bonuses and are lucky to receive a raise and/or benefits. The days of loyalty to the employees are over and as others have pointed out, it boils down to just plain greed on the part of the top officers.

And if profits are down, the CEOs call in consultants who they pay big bucks to let the workers know that they apparently are NOT giving 120% of their energy to the company. I threw the "Franklin Covey" rep. out of my office when he told me that I had to go to class to learn how to be more productive. I was devoting 12 hours a day to the firm.

There may be some wonderful CEOs turning companies around but for the most part, what we have seen in the last 10-20 years has been the officers and board members feeding off of the workers -- not seeming to care where the company was headed. They cooked the books and lied to the stockholders and looted the company with no concern for the wokers or whether they were taking the company down (ala WorldCom and Enron. and the more recent Wall street scandals, etc.). Now they want to feed off of not only the workers but the tax payers as well.

To hell with them!

For every WorldCom there are 10,000 legitimate public companies. I love how people cite the exception as if it was the rule. As someone who has advised corporate presidents and sat in on those board meetings I can tell you that the vast vast majority are hard working individuals (most working 60 hours a week) who take pride in their work and, more importantly, pride in the companies they run. Take for example, Steve Jobs (who I find repugnant), there is no way that man doesn't live and breath Apple 25 hours a day and it shows.
BTW, delegate is what a CEO does after he or she makes a management decision.

 

[Peter Parka]

Would you want the federal government telling you how much you earn? Or would you prefer the actual owners of the company making that decision?

The company owners job is getting as much work for as little pay as he can from his employees, he dosent give a shit about them as long as they dont leave, something I've witnessed first hand. All this does is drive the wages down. I think everyone should have a decent standard of living and minimum wage makes this possible.

 

[Dana]

---------------
Yeah mine too; especially since I'm clipping coupons in order to save on groceries and watching them steal my retirement $ from my investments.

Off with their heads !!

UPS upped their retirement age and now my mothers boyfriend has to wait until he's friggen 64 to retire... He was pissed, he thought hed be out by age 55. He's currently 48.

 

[SgtSpike]

If you think about it, paying them a modest salary, and giving the rest in stock options is a novel idea, it will give the incentive to be innovative in bringing value to the marketplace again, and come up with good ideas to bring he value of the stock back up.

Their very salary will depend on it

Probably 99% of publicly held companies in America already do this. The average base pay for a CEO is usually just 10%-20% or so of what they make on the stock options they are given as part of the compensation. You're completely right - without any incentives like this, many CEOs will just sit back and enjoy the ride, which is why any smart company will make stock options the bulk of the compensation for a CEO.

As I understood it (and I could be wrong), the base pay and incentive pay combined could not be valued at more than $500k with Obama's new law. But, if that is not the case, and incentive pay isn't limited, then I don't care so much.

I think you would be amazed at how many qualified people would absolutely jump at the opportunity to be the CEO of any of these companies. Hell, they would do it for $0 in salary. These CEO's aren't in it for the money, it's all about power and control. That's why the dedicate their lives to their work.

I completely disagree with that statement. Maybe a handful of CEOs are only there for the power grab, but what motivates just about all of them is the money.

You are viewing these people as responsible and moral which appears to be a mistake. CEO's entered the ego zone along time ago. In the last 20 years many of them have been acting on it for self enrichment. In the zone you are deserve fabulous wealth because you achieved the position of CEO. Secondly you really expect the BOD to look out for the long term health of the company? They are at the feed trough collecting their $100k per year (or more) by supporting the decisions of the management. They are all in the zone. Five years of duty and they (CEOs) are rich. That is all they care about. So they need a reality check. Anyone who thinks they deserve to be independently wealthy because they are good CEOs really needs to examine their value system imo. I would not really have a problem with a $2 million retirement. But why does this person need a $25 million or more bonus? There is NO good reason other than greed which is not a good reason. I don't care how good of a job you did.

You're stuck in the socialist mindset - the mindset that says, "This person doesn't NEED this much money". Well, duh, but he wants it. And the board of directors for the company is willing to pay it. And the owners of the company are willing to pay it, because they believe the CEO is worth it. So what is the problem? After all, it is the owner's and board of director's money to spend as they see fit, why not let them spend it?

It's like the government coming in and saying you can't pay $25,000 for a new car, because no one deserves to get paid that much for a car. Your limit is $10,000 whether you like it or not. Now, when you're car shopping, and you have $50k in the bank, and you really want that new 4x4 truck because it'll be perfect for traveling in the snow, you can't get it because the government won't let you and people call the car manufacturers greedy for charging that much. Well, the car manufacturer could make a 4x4 for $10k, but it wouldn't be near the quality or capacity of a $25k truck. Same thing for a CEO. You can limit the salary, but you won't get the quality or capacity of a higher paid CEO.

I know some of the CEOs out there are downright crooks, but punishing all CEOs for it is not the answer, nor will it help these companies return to profitability.

 

[Strauss]

The company owners job is getting as much work for as little pay as he can from his employees, he dosent give a shit about them as long as they dont leave, something I've witnessed first hand. All this does is drive the wages down. I think everyone should have a decent standard of living and minimum wage makes this possible.

Since one class of the largest stockholders is unions they would be cutting their nose to despite their face. And that doesn't happen

My post related to publicly traded companies not some mom and pop 50 million a year corporation.


BTW, minimum wage doesn't provide a "decent standard of living" and it was never intended too.

 

[Minor Axis]

You're stuck in the socialist mindset - the mindset that says, "This person doesn't NEED this much money". Well, duh, but he wants it. And the board of directors for the company is willing to pay it. And the owners of the company are willing to pay it, because they believe the CEO is worth it. So what is the problem? After all, it is the owner's and board of director's money to spend as they see fit, why not let them spend it?

It's like the government coming in and saying you can't pay $25,000 for a new car, because no one deserves to get paid that much for a car. Your limit is $10,000 whether you like it or not. Now, when you're car shopping, and you have $50k in the bank, and you really want that new 4x4 truck because it'll be perfect for traveling in the snow, you can't get it because the government won't let you and people call the car manufacturers greedy for charging that much. Well, the car manufacturer could make a 4x4 for $10k, but it wouldn't be near the quality or capacity of a $25k truck. Same thing for a CEO. You can limit the salary, but you won't get the quality or capacity of a higher paid CEO.

I know some of the CEOs out there are downright crooks, but punishing all CEOs for it is not the answer, nor will it help these companies return to profitability.

In the late 1800's business got so far out of wack that eventually the U.S. government stepped in and broke the trusts. And I don't have a socialist mindset, my mindset is an economic system that benefits most of us.

 

[Meirionnydd]

In the late 1800's business got so far out of wack that eventually the U.S. government stepped in and broke the trusts. And I don't have a socialist mindset, my mindset is an economic system that benefits most of us.

Benefits the majority and not just a small percentage of individuals?

COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Like any human activity there are those who don't deserve what they are getting. That's not the issue, the issue is who those the bums out? Would you want the federal government telling you how much you earn? Or would you prefer the actual owners of the company making that decision?

In this case it is only the companies that asked for bail out money.

Normally I would never be okay with government being this involved in corporate America, but they needed help and now I feel like the government has the job of protecting the taxpayer from getting robbed a second time.

As far as I'm concerned what went on on Wall St. was a criminal enterprise, there should be folks getting taken to jail.

Not bickering over bonus packages. Bottom line, they asked for help, they got it...With stipulations, kinda like what we are taught in Kindergarten...You never get something for nothing

 

[boombala]

snip:

You're stuck in the socialist mindset - the mindset that says, "This person doesn't NEED this much money". Well, duh, but he wants it. And the board of directors for the company is willing to pay it. And the owners of the company are willing to pay it, because they believe the CEO is worth it. So what is the problem? After all, it is the owner's and board of director's money to spend as they see fit, why not let them spend it?

snip:
------------------------

Your argument might hold some water if we were talking about privately owned companies but the companies/corporations in question who have their hands out to receive government bail out $ are NOT privately owned.

To quote you "After all, it is the owner's and board of director's money to spend as they see fit, why not let them spend it??" In this case the answer is because the money its NOT theirs to do with as they wish, the stockholders are the owners.

The CEOs and BODs are accountable to the stockholders who they lied to. They cooked the books and sent out information containing false inflated figures re: cash flow, and then they proceeded to loot the company, etc. (I know cause I still have some of the WorldCom crap). The stockholders, who are also tax payers, got screwed at least twice.

They are liers and theives and should face criminal charges.

 

[flipx]

Good move by Obama. You think this will worsen the economy? lol

 

[SgtSpike]

snip:

You're stuck in the socialist mindset - the mindset that says, "This person doesn't NEED this much money". Well, duh, but he wants it. And the board of directors for the company is willing to pay it. And the owners of the company are willing to pay it, because they believe the CEO is worth it. So what is the problem? After all, it is the owner's and board of director's money to spend as they see fit, why not let them spend it?

snip:
------------------------

Your argument might hold some water if we were talking about privately owned companies but the companies/corporations in question who have their hands out to receive government bail out $ are NOT privately owned.

To quote you "After all, it is the owner's and board of director's money to spend as they see fit, why not let them spend it??" In this case the answer is because the money its NOT theirs to do with as they wish, the stockholders are the owners.

The CEOs and BODs are accountable to the stockholders who they lied to. They cooked the books and sent out information containing false inflated figures re: cash flow, and then they proceeded to loot the company, etc. (I know cause I still have some of the WorldCom crap). The stockholders, who are also tax payers, got screwed at least twice.

They are liers and theives and should face criminal charges.

I completely agree that any CEOs or other executives that wasn't reporting their financials properly should be jailed, just like the Enron guys and WorldCom, etc. If there's another situation like that, then by all means, jail them! But as far as I am aware, there HASN'T been any of those situations lately, especially with the introduction of the Sarbanes-Oxley act. If you could point me to a few of these corrupt executives who have lied about their financials, by all means, please do, because I'm interested to read about it.

Good move by Obama. You think this will worsen the economy? lol

Yes I do. I think that the financial companies will either lose the current CEOs who are good at their job because of lack of pay, or fail to get rid of the crappy CEOs because no one else WANTS the job. Simple laws of supply and demand in a free market (which is slowly becoming less and less free every day). If I want to be a fisher, I'm not going to sell my goods where there is a cap on the price and I can only sell a fish for $0.25. I'll sell my fish where I can sell them for whatever people are willing to pay for them.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yes I do. I think that the financial companies will either lose the current CEOs who are good at their job because of lack of pay, or fail to get rid of the crappy CEOs because no one else WANTS the job. Simple laws of supply and demand in a free market (which is slowly becoming less and less free every day). If I want to be a fisher, I'm not going to sell my goods where there is a cap on the price and I can only sell a fish for $0.25. I'll sell my fish where I can sell them for whatever people are willing to pay for them.

Too bad it's not that simple. Economic situations can and have developed where power is seized by a relative few whose primary goal is to enrich themselves. Research Teddy Roosevelt when he busted the Trusts. Recently this clearly has happened with the financial sector and the corporate ego zone. Just because the few in power think it's perfectly reasonable to enrich their friends and themselves does not mean that because "they can", "they should", or should be able to. Lack of morality plays a huge factor in this. Just because someone is willing to pay them does not mean it morally grounded nor does it mean they have the best interests of the country in mind. We are a country and a society. Our government should keep these types of forces in check for the collective good.

And the next person to accuse me of being a communist, you are out of your mind if you don't think any economic system must benefit the majority of participants or in the long run it will fail.

 

[SgtSpike]

Too bad it's not that simple. Economic situations can and have developed where power is seized by a relative few whose primary goal is to enrich themselves. Research Teddy Roosevelt when he busted the Trusts. Recently this clearly has happened with the financial sector and the corporate ego zone. Just because the few in power think it's perfectly reasonable to enrich their friends and themselves does not mean that because "they can", "they should", or should be able to. Lack of morality plays a huge factor in this. Just because someone is willing to pay them does not mean it morally grounded nor does it mean they have the best interests of the country in mind. We are a country and a society. Our government should keep these types of forces in check for the collective good.

And the next person to accuse me of being a communist, you are out of your mind if you don't think any economic system must benefit the majority of participants or in the long run it will fail.

Since when was the free market about benefiting the country? Lol...

Face it - anyone who is in a free market society will conduct business transactions to benefit themselves the most. That is what drives it - our selfish human nature. You take away the opportunity to better yourself through your own actions, and your actions will stop being beneficial to anyone.

The uninhibited free market is what has driven America to be the greatest country in the world in just a few hundred years, and yet, you want to take it all away?

Also, I'd love to hear an example of your so-called immoral pay schedules for CEO's. How do you determine what is an immoral paycheck for a CEO?

 

[groundpounder]

You're stuck in the socialist mindset - the mindset that says, "This person doesn't NEED this much money". Well, duh, but he wants it. And the board of directors for the company is willing to pay it. And the owners of the company are willing to pay it, because they believe the CEO is worth it. So what is the problem?...

HOE.
LEE.
SHIT.

you're in the United States, right? Planet Earth?

 

[SgtSpike]

HOE.
LEE.
SHIT.

you're in the United States, right? Planet Earth?

Is it not the company's decision to pay whom they want what they want?

 

[flipx]

Yes I do. I think that the financial companies will either lose the current CEOs who are good at their job because of lack of pay, or fail to get rid of the crappy CEOs because no one else WANTS the job. Simple laws of supply and demand in a free market (which is slowly becoming less and less free every day). If I want to be a fisher, I'm not going to sell my goods where there is a cap on the price and I can only sell a fish for $0.25. I'll sell my fish where I can sell them for whatever people are willing to pay for them.

You need to read up on this policy again, you're not getting it by the sounds of it. I'm not even American and I can see why this is the only way to strengthen the US economy. What do you suggest?

 

[SgtSpike]

You need to read up on this policy again, you're not getting it by the sounds of it. I'm not even American and I can see why this is the only way to strengthen the US economy. What do you suggest?

What part am I not getting? And how the heck is this going to strengthen the economy?

Sure, let's pay the LEADERS of the companies (you know, the ones who make all the important decisions and keep a company afloat) LESS, and that'll solve all our problems.

 

[groundpounder]

Is it not the company's decision to pay whom they want what they want?

jeebus cripes, sarge, these are the same companies that ran our economy into the ground and now are needing billions of dollars from the government to keep them afloat.

I'd say the majority of decisions such as to pay someone tens of millions of dollars IS part of the problem, if not THE problem.

The salary cap is as much symbolic as it is pragmatic. I'm sorry, but if MY tax dollars are going to bail out a company because they FUBAR'd, I think it's only fair that they DON'T get paid $25 million per. That's just me...

Why do you think Wells Fargo put the kibosh on their swank Vegas trip patting themselves on the back for doing a great job right after receiving billions? I mean, really now....

 

[flipx]

What part am I not getting? And how the heck is this going to strengthen the economy?

Sure, let's pay the LEADERS of the companies (you know, the ones who make all the important decisions and keep a company afloat) LESS, and that'll solve all our problems.

Any of it, by the sounds of it...

"And how the heck is this going to strengthen the economy?"

Wow... :24: