limiting executive pay

Xceler8x wrote:

TJ wrote: Banks that are doing well, which is a good many banks other than the giant Wall St. ones, who might be paying their CEO's millions and they are doing a good job will look like greedy bankers and they will be under pressure to cut their salaries down to the new cap.

I'm crying big fat tears of sadness for those poor under paid Bank CEO's right now. Will the MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INJUSTICE THEY HAVE ENDURED EVER END?! Those poor poor men. Stuck driving Mercedes instead of Bentley's.

Well hello Mr. Straw Man!

minimac wrote:

geomiata wrote:

Wally wrote:

Am I the only one who doesn't think Steve Martin is funny? He never has been the only movie he made I can watch is Planes, Trains and Automobiles and John Candy made that movie. I wish that Obama would step in and fire the people that keep putting Steve Martin in movies. He already ruined the Pink Panther, now he's given a chance to back up and run over it's corpse. Why?!?!

+eleventytrillion

I kept wishing that stupid arrow through his head was real.

But he is a fine banjo player.

SVreX wrote: So, you are saying that Rick Hendrick (CEO of Hendrick Motorsports, which is worth $335 million and generates $179 million in revenue annually) would not deserve a compensation package worth $6 million if he had a lowly pit worker who only made $15,000, right? Sorry. I don't buy it. And I don't think you do either.

It's unfortunate that you had to bring real names into this but I think that is too much (although revenue doesn't tell me a whole lot)

I'd like to know why CEOs make so much more than any other executive. If you graph pay vs. hierarchy it will shoot up like crazy and the end of the graph. Why?

There are many jobs that require similar or higher levels of education and demand similar or higher levels of responsibility and don't pay anywhere near as much. It's really quite puzzling how things came to this. The idiotbox told me a couple of days ago that in the 80s CEOs were making a much more sane 40x as much as an average employee.

GameboyRMH wrote:

SVreX wrote: So, you are saying that Rick Hendrick (CEO of Hendrick Motorsports, which is worth $335 million and generates $179 million in revenue annually) would not deserve a compensation package worth $6 million if he had a lowly pit worker who only made $15,000, right? Sorry. I don't buy it. And I don't think you do either.

It's unfortunate that you had to bring real names into this but I think that is too much (although revenue doesn't tell me a whole lot) I'd like to know why CEOs make so much more than any other executive. If you graph pay vs. hierarchy it will shoot up like crazy and the end of the graph. Why? There are many jobs that require similar or higher levels of education and demand similar or higher levels of responsibility and don't pay anywhere near as much. It's really quite puzzling how things came to this. The idiotbox told me a couple of days ago that in the 80s CEOs were making a much more sane 40x as much as an average employee.

Y'all talk nice about my daddy, now.

TJ wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: I think we are comparing apples and oranges here. The Feds are handing money to banks, just as an investor would do in an equity situation.

Investors typically invest their own money, the government is "investing" our money.

The only reason the government is investing in these companies right now is because the private investors won't. In a true capitalist system these banks would be allowed to go bust, the CEOS would not be getting paychecks or bonuses at all and their stock options would be worthless. They might even be subject to shareholder lawsuits. The market has already decided these guys are worthless. These shiny happy people are damned lucky the government is even willing to pay them 500K.

OK, so I'm not making any excuses for any sorry execs. I'm no big fan either.

But the point is, I believe an awful lot of folks want to blame "the man" for their own woes, and the reality is that they are just a bit jealous.

The fact that an exec doesn't get his hands dirty has absolutely nothing to do with his value to the company.

Most execs CREATE jobs for the rest of us.

Most execs ADD value for shareholders.

Frequently, execs are the visionaries without whom none of the company would exist in the first place.

Pit crew workers do not create jobs. Without a pit crew worker, you miss an oil change. Without a visionary charismatic exec at the helm of a company, you can often loose the company.

I believe in allowing the market to define the value. If I choose to make myself a pretty darned good pit crew worker, with no further vision, then perhaps I am worth $50K, just because that's what the market will bear.

If I bring leadership and vision to a company to enable it's entire existence, then I am worth whatever that company says I am.

If I suck at being an exec and offer no leadership or good decision making, then the company should fail and so should I. My value becomes zero.

I have no idea what Rick Hendricks makes, and I don't care. But my example showed the theoretical compensation to him of 3.3% of earnings. That isn't bad, but I know of A LOT of businessmen who wouldn't dream of accepting less than a 20% stake in a company they were driving. There are probably business owners on this board who lead companies that do $500,000 per year. I'll bet they won't take $16,500 (3.3%) for their efforts.

SVreX, I dunno what companies you've worked for, but everyone I've ever worked for has pretty much been led by incompetent imbiciles or tards. You'll learn more from Dilbert than Business school. And look at the current mess. A billion dollar company (pick one) run straight into the ground in a couple years. And we should pay millions for that kind of leadership?

Now, I don't think the government should be telling people how much they can make. However, the government shouldn't really be giving these companies money either, but it is happening, for whatever reason. And it then becomes reasonable for the person giving the money to tell the entity receiving the money how they are going to operate from here on out, or else the receiving entity doesn't have to take the money at all and can keep doing whatever they're doing (filing for bankruptcy). In these cases, these clowns (sorry to dis' clowns) destroyed the company, then beg money from us, which we don't have. We'll borrow the Chinese and Saudi's money to give them and let our grandchildren pay it back or suffer through the inflation to destroy the debt and the war(s) that will follow. Then the clowns (sorry, true clowns) give themselves million dollar salaries and bonuses for this. That ain't right.

I'm a free market capitalist, but this ain't free market capitalism.

GameboyRMH wrote: There are many jobs that require similar or higher levels of education and demand similar or higher levels of responsibility

There are jobs that require higher levels of education. Few CEO's have PhD's, but there may be many people in the ranks of the organization that do. A CEO's value isn't in the education. A good education helps, but there are high performing CEO's that didn't get out of high school, and there are Harvard MBA's who turn out to be horrible CEO's. The education is a means, it's not an end.

There are no positions within an organization that have higher levels of responsibility. No other individual in a company can be so directly responsible for it's success or failure.

When a company goes into Bankruptcy, the Judge gets to decide who makes what and how the business is run. This situation is no different.

Dr. Hess wrote: SVreX, I dunno what companies you've worked for, but everyone I've ever worked for has pretty much been led by incompetent imbiciles or tards. You'll learn more from Dilbert than Business school. And look at the current mess. A billion dollar company (pick one) run straight into the ground in a couple years. And we should pay millions for that kind of leadership?

You'll be hard pressed to find anywhere that I EVER suggested we (presumably taxpayers) pay ANYTHING for ANY kind of business leadership whatsoever.

My comment was a direct response to this one:

TJ wrote: I do not see why any CEO is worth 400x their workers - they cannot do 400x the work

...which I do not agree with. It says nothing about bailouts, government funds, or taxpayers. As a blanket statement, I can't say 400x is unreasonable.

And the VAST majority of companies in this country are not getting bailed out, and we are not paying directly for them. While there may be wiser choices, I do not care how much a company chooses to pay it's CEO's.

I am seriously against bailouts, but if they are gonna happen against my will, then I would much rather have LOTS of strings attached. The more the better- do everything we can to make these 'tards severely uncomfortable.

Not that it matters, but I have worked for several charismatic and visionary leaders like Millard Fuller, who built multiple multi-million dollar corporations and non-profits. (I don't think any of them ever went to business school).

I've worked for a lot of people I don't like, but I've never worked for someone I didn't respect. I wouldn't. At any price. So that one's easy for me.

Well, it's nice that you have those options, Rex. Personally, if I stop working, half the student loan industry will colapse.

I can't say as I've ever worked for a company with a charismatic or visionary leader. They've all been 'tards as near as I can tell, although some have been somewhat charismatic while they destroyed the company. Like Dilbert concluded, the primary job of each level of management is to protect you from the next level up. If it wasn't for the people "at the bottom" doing the work, regardless of the stoopidity, the company would colapse.

I don't see anyone as being worth 400x the lowest wage in the company, but if that's what the owners want to pay the top man, I think that is their choice. Now, if your grandchildren will have to assume the responsibility for that bill, then 500 large/year seems a bit too much to me. I think maybe 50 large a year sounds about right, and that's only if they give us a good 40 hrs/week, and no perks either. And we need to have weekly basebal bat sessions too just to keep them motivated.

I have been trying really hard to stay out of this thread.

TJ wrote: I do not see why any CEO is worth 400x their workers - they cannot do 400x the work

Ok, let me retrench here a little. Things (and people) are paid whatever someone is willing to pay. If a board of directors thinks a CEo should make $15 Milion a year plus a huge bonus, then they are worth it...at least to the board of directors. The part I don't like is that I don't get a say even though I am a partial owner of the company due to buying shares of say a mutual fund that buys the companies stock.

I do not think pro athletes (think baseball, football, NBA) are worth what they make so I choose to not watch their games on tv, I do not attend their games, I don't buy their jerseys, etc. Same goes for most hollywood types. They are not worth what they make to me, but they are worth it to somebody so that's ok. I can have an opinion and that doesn't mean I am right. With CEO's of publicly traded companies the same choice is not as easy. Sure I could stuff cash in my mattress instead of investing in their companies, but that's not a real good idea in my book.

This reminds me of an article that concluded that it would not be worth Bill Gates' time to stop and pick up a $100 bill on the sidewalk because the second or two of his time was way more valuable than $100.

Dr. Hess wrote: Well, it's nice that you have those options, Rex. Personally, if I stop working, half the student loan industry will colapse.

I have never stopped working for nearly 40 years. I also had student loans, which I paid in full and on time.

Dr. Hess wrote: I can't say as I've ever worked for a company with a charismatic or visionary leader.

That's really sad. I guess we have made different choices.

Dr. Hess wrote: I don't see anyone as being worth 400x the lowest wage in the company...

I agree, it's just within my realm of imagination.

Dr. Hess wrote: Now, if your grandchildren will have to assume the responsibility for that bill, then 500 large/year seems a bit too much to me.

Again, I agree. I see no reason why our government should even consider bailing out any company for their own stupidity. Let 'em fall.

Does Bill Gates make more than 400x his lowest employee?

I don't know.

But if he does, that's just fine with me. Just don't ask for taxpayer dollars to bail you out if you are wrong.

TJ wrote: If a board of directors thinks a CEo should make $15 Milion a year plus a huge bonus, then they are worth it...at least to the board of directors. The part I don't like is that I don't get a say even though I am a partial owner of the company due to buying shares of say a mutual fund that buys the companies stock.

Then don't buy those mutual funds. Seriously. The BOD is the owner's representation. If you don't think the board of a particular corporation is doing what is in your best interest, then divest yourself of the holdings of that corporation. If it's part of a fund you hold, then sell your shares in that fund. There's no requirement to invest in mutual funds. It's an easy way to diversify, but certainly not the only way.

That is certainly a solution - not the easy way, but a way. I think it is the rise of mutual funds that has lead to the explosion in CEO pay. The BOD really answers to nobody if there is not a large shareholder. When the largest shareholder of Exxon-Mobil is a teacher retirement account, how much pull do you really think a bunch of teachers has at influencing the BOD?

The way it is now the CEOs and BODs are pretty much able to do what they want with a lot of public companies.

You are right in that I should either quit bitching or take my money out - so I'll be quiet.