Because I also have a crush on him.

Obama announces cap on executive pay

Now if only this example could somehow filter throughout the rest of society. How AWESOME would that be. 

Mina.

Only on those that work for companies that take the bail out, that and it has to get through Congress, which might be a lot harder.

Quote from: tekla on February 04, 2009, 01:44:57 PM
Only on those that work for companies that take the bail out, that and it has to get through Congress, which might be a lot harder.

Oh yeah, that's right! Go and spoil my good mood now you, you ... spoiler of moods you!

Mina.

By no means do I think $500,000 is paltry, but on the flip side.

If you were hired a year or two ago to come in and help a failing company ( perhaps too far gone perhaps not ), and were offered big payouts to do so for say two million a year.   You pick up & move and find a house start living within your means of two million.   Then your company is offered a bail out package to get it stronger, maybe a decision not by the CEO but the board.   Then you are told well your contract is toast and we are reducing your salary to 500K (a 75% pay cut).

I would say see ya.... this can only encourage Talented management to seek employment elsewhere.    And at a time where stable management is required to rebuild companies, I se the bail out as a time to BAIL Out of companies by their Talented management.   I see lawsuits coming over this as even if the company was rebounding, and the board took the money ( I mean who wouldn't if offered).   Once again this will cost everyone, and the lawyers will win.

Shoot let's just reduce everyone's salary by 75%... I am sure no one would be laid off then.

I can not see this as working successfully.  What is doing is limiting our ability to make it big?   Just wait, someday the NFL will have issues, and the government will set player contracts capped at 500K. 

Note the total sense of sarcasm.  It is completely wrong to limit the salaries of the people who stand strong with companies that do something for our country, while others who produce zilch make 8 digit contracts.  I mean our president makes less than professional football players, and if he were to ask that their salaries be capped there would be heck to pay.  In fact how much do they actually help put back into the community.   They are a part of a team and have talent, and yet they produce nothing tangible. 

Just a thought -- or two

Daisy

I se the bail out as a time to BAIL Out of companies by their Talented management

I guess the counter argument is that, well, if they were all that talented, would they need the bail out in the first place? 

It is going to make what was going to be the longest line in the world at the gravy train just a bit shorter.  I'm sure this is why Ford isn't going along.

And, as soon as the 'loans' are paid back they are free to go back to business as usual.

And, I'm not sure this will really happen either.

daisy,

there is a very simple solution to the situation you described. if you are a company that pays execs ungodly amounts of money and wants to continue doing so, DON'T ASK FOR A HANDOUT.

simple as that. wall street paid out $18 billion in bonuses of your money and mine.


and regarding the NFL, most professional sports DO have a salary cap.



as to the OP, I have a crush on obama too

This is a pretty extreme move. $500K is indeed paltry if you're a Wall Street exec accustomed to pulling in $10M or more. And that's hardly unusual. Yes, it'll be a hardship, once your consumtion pattern in at that level. You'll have to spend a lot of time cutting back from a wealthy lifestyle to one that is still above the vast majority of the U.S. population, but nevertheless much more like the middle class than George Soros. It will be a tough pill to swallow, and one that many might simply refuse -- they'll leave. It's easy, if you're at that level in the world of finance, to find a job that pays a lot more than that.

But there's an out. They can still recieve stock, provided they only sell it after the government loan is paid back. That will be a big incentive to pay it back as soon as possible, without destroying the company. So overall I think it's a damn clever move.

are people really feeling sorry for wall street executives that collect bonus money even after they have announced massive layoffs and ran the company into the ground and then accepted tax payer dollars as a bailout??

I say hang them. any time a company announces layoffs, NO ONE should get a bonus for doing a "hell of a job".

again, if you don't like the cap in executive pay, there is a simple solution, don't extend your hand for tax payer money.

Quote from: daisybelle on February 05, 2009, 09:17:38 AM
Note the total sense of sarcasm.  It is completely wrong to limit the salaries of the people who stand strong with companies that do something for our country, while others who produce zilch make 8 digit contracts. I mean our president makes less than professional football players, and if he were to ask that their salaries be capped there would be heck to pay.  In fact how much do they actually help put back into the community.   They are a part of a team and have talent, and yet they produce nothing tangible. 

Just a thought -- or two

Daisy

That's why I'd like to see a flexible cap on what entertainers and athletes earn.  A part of the skimmed off money would be put away to ensure they have really fat retirement funds.  Like even a million a year.  The rest of the money would go into education, health, and homeless.

---

Post Merge: February 05, 2009, 02:41:59 PM

---

Quote from: tekla on February 05, 2009, 11:31:06 AM
I se the bail out as a time to BAIL Out of companies by their Talented management

I guess the counter argument is that, well, if they were all that talented, would they need the bail out in the first place? 

It is going to make what was going to be the longest line in the world at the gravy train just a bit shorter.  I'm sure this is why Ford isn't going along.

And, as soon as the 'loans' are paid back they are free to go back to business as usual.

And, I'm not sure this will really happen either.

Didn't Lee Iococa work for a dollar a year until the company was turned around?  Then he was allowed to have fat benefits and such.

---

Post Merge: February 05, 2009, 03:46:28 PM

---

Quote from: eliza beth on February 05, 2009, 01:14:44 PM
are people really feeling sorry for wall street executives that collect bonus money even after they have announced massive layoffs and ran the company into the ground and then accepted tax payer dollars as a bailout??

I say hang them. any time a company announces layoffs, NO ONE should get a bonus for doing a "hell of a job".

again, if you don't like the cap in executive pay, there is a simple solution, don't extend your hand for tax payer money.

I really agree with this.  Plus, the money should go to repairing the company and securing the investments of the stockholders and the jobs of employees.

For all I care, every outrageously high paid executive on the planet can just fudge off and die.

By outrageous, I mean anything more than the arbitrary amount of maybe 10 million a year.  Though I'd rather see it at 5 million.

It's not a matter of feeling sorry. It's a matter of whether it makes any sense to lend a company money, and then require that all its senior executives take a 95% pay cut. You end up with a company without any senoir executives. That doesn't exactly make it more likely that the loan will be paid back or, more importantly, that the money you donated does anything to save the companies that you thought were so vital to the health of the economy that you doled out 350 gigabucks to keep them running. Of course, it's not really a pay cut, but a pay deferral, because of the stock deal. I think it strikes a good balance.

Yeah, I'm looking for a job that pays me what my old one did.

And what was that?

Director of Market Research for GM.  Hello?  Hello?

Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 05, 2009, 10:52:59 PMOf course, it's not really a pay cut, but a pay deferral, because of the stock deal. I think it strikes a good balance.

Of course, being the resident socialist nutcase, I feel every employee of a company should have shares and thus a say in the running of that company. I'm sure there'd be a lot less CEO misuse of funds to go on golf holidays and "team-building" exercises if the people in the trenches could get them fired for that sorta thing.

Mina.

Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 05, 2009, 10:52:59 PM
It's not a matter of feeling sorry. It's a matter of whether it makes any sense to lend a company money, and then require that all its senior executives take a 95% pay cut. You end up with a company without any senoir executives. That doesn't exactly make it more likely that the loan will be paid back or, more importantly, that the money you donated does anything to save the companies that you thought were so vital to the health of the economy that you doled out 350 gigabucks to keep them running. Of course, it's not really a pay cut, but a pay deferral, because of the stock deal. I think it strikes a good balance.

first of all, there is nothing that leads me to believe we are "lending" anyone anything. this is corporate welfare plain and simple. if we get any of it back it will be a small fraction. would have made much more sense to purchase the bad loans and allow them paid back. we did have provisions in the auto maker "loan" that required them to pay it back, but the wall street bailout was not really accounted for. no one knows who got how much really and what it was used for.

second of all, if a business is struggling they do not deserve bonuses. plain and simple, you don't pay out bonuses unless you are exceeding expectations. these days the bonuses are just another name for salary, instead of not getting a bonus they opt to layoff workers. which is best for the USA, workers out of a job that can't pay taxes and can't keep the economy moving buy purchasing goods, or a CEO getting an extra 5 million that winds up in an offshore savings account so they can avoid paying taxes.

again, if they don't like the REQUIREMENT of the "LOAN" then don't take the hand out.

Quote from: mina.m->-bleeped-<-ie link=topic=54789.msg343236#msg343236 date=1233900608

Quote from: Alyssa M. on February 05, 2009, 10:52:59 PMOf course, it's not really a pay cut, but a pay deferral, because of the stock deal. I think it strikes a good balance.

Of course, being the resident socialist nutcase, I feel every employee of a company should have shares and thus a say in the running of that company. I'm sure there'd be a lot less CEO misuse of funds to go on golf holidays and "team-building" exercises if the people in the trenches could get them fired for that sorta thing.

Mina.

as another socialist nutcase I have to agree here and take it a step further (out nutcasing the nutcase?). what does a CEO do in the day to day operations that the workers can't do with a simple majority vote or votes via their elected leaders? unfortunatly union is a four letter word these days.

Quote from: eliza beth on February 06, 2009, 01:44:36 AMas another socialist nutcase I have to agree here and take it a step further (out nutcasing the nutcase?). what does a CEO do in the day to day operations that the workers can't do with a simple majority vote or votes via their elected leaders?

I was being a diplomatic socialist.

I was talking to a friend in China last night, and she said how many of the people who are coming back to work from Chinese New Year are finding that the factories have been locked up and the management and owners have just disappeared. I think that, as this crisis worsens, this is going to start happening elsewhere as well.

Back in 1999 when the Argentinian economy crashed, also on the back of banks, many factories were similarly abandoned. There's a strong streak of Anarchism in South America though, and many of these factories were reclaimed by worker's collectives that run the factories by vote and all have an equal share. At last count there are still almost 200 such worker-owned businesses in Argentina, still going strong despite efforts to seize the factories back now that the crisis there has passed. I can see that happening in other parts of the world as well.

Quoteunfortunately union is a four letter word these days.

LOL! Unions are so corrupt these days anyway. Direct action and organisation is the only way to go.

Mina.

Quote from: mina.m->-bleeped-<-ie link=topic=54789.msg343308#msg343308 date=1233928838
LOL! Unions are so corrupt these days anyway. Direct action and organisation is the only way to go.
Mina.

that's it, i'm revoking your socialist membership card.
it's a shame how a few bad apples spoil the bunch. we need more unions in this country, not less.

power to the people!

Unions are not all of a piece, I swear by mine.  But some have a lot of corruption, true that.

Wait a minute.

More than like it is the Board deciding whether to take the money -- not the executives.

Iococca was hired and went to ork when the company was in the crapper already.... so he made that decision upon starting it was not thrust upon him. 

Daisy

Any bank, any venture capitalist can, and does put conditions on loans and investments.  What's the diff?

For my money - and it is my money - I think all these companies ought to be forced to put a court appointed master on the board too, just to keep them honest.  Remember, they don't have to take the money, and if they had been any good at their job they wouldn't need it.

If they had any honor, they would shut down their bloated and corrupt companies and get real jobs working for the Coast Guard or hurricane relief.

Quote from: eliza beth on February 06, 2009, 02:03:45 PMthat's it, i'm revoking your socialist membership card.
it's a shame how a few bad apples spoil the bunch. we need more unions in this country, not less.

power to the people!

Hehehe. I probably burned it myself long ago. I'm anarcho-socialist, so leadership structures ... don't sit well with me. Unions ... meh, but worker's collectives and syndicates, now those I can get behind. 

Mina.