So you're suggesting that no matter how incompenent that person may be at the job, just the fact that they're doing it automatically makes them worth more than 500k? With that kind of logic, you'd fit right in with the clowns that have been running these companies into the ground.
So you're suggesting that no matter how incompenent that person may be at the job, just the fact that they're doing it automatically makes them worth more than 500k? With that kind of logic, you'd fit right in with the clowns that have been running these companies into the ground.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
The fact of the matter is, if the company performs so poorly that they require assistance from the American taxpayer (who are on the dime even if they have nothing to do with that company at all), then they sure as hell aren't worth more than $500k.
I like the bolded part of your quote, I think that's indicitive of finding a reasonable common ground.
I think that for privately-owned companies, there should be zero limit on compensation. But if they are a publicly traded corporation, then they should have to follow a very stringent set of rules. The health of many of these companies would be much better if they didn't have droves of executives making tens of billions in salary, bonuses, and golden parachutes as reward for mediocre or even counterproductive performance.
So.... how do you feel about Obama's salary? Is it too low considering that he is the leader of the United States with a population >400 Million and and however much money the Fed brings in on a yearly basis?
If the president of the United States can do it, these CEO's will manage. And if they leave... good riddance, it's not like they didn't run these companies into the ground or anything
:roll:
They ran their companies so incompetently that they are having to go beg the federal government for money or go bankrupt. As a lender, the government is able to set standards for lending. If AIG or anyone else doesn't like those terms they are free not to take any government cash, as nobody is forcing them to do anything, same as with any other loan. If they do want to take it, then they have to accept the fact that the American public doesn't want their cash being loaned to companies in order to pay executives so that they can buy a bigger mansion. Hell, whatever AIG's CEO was making I'll drive their company into the ground for half that. Think of the savings!
This is just a political move that was necessitated by public outcry, but it's not one I can say I'm going to get too worked up about. Bad managers aren't being disproportionately rewarded for doing their jobs horribly. Waaah. (I'm sure some good managers in unrelated areas of the banks will be caught up in this, and that is regrettable, but again it's still hard to muster up that much outrage.)
Well that would include other things other than Salary. It seems ProfJohn was just arguing the Salary point.
In any event just because they only get 500K in salary doesn't mean they don't get stock options. They can get millions there but only on the condition they are paying back the money we loaned to them which seems fair. You would think that would be a good incentive to take a more long-term approach to right the ships at these companies.
Do you own these companies that are faltering? You are giving off an impression that publicly traded companies are publicly owned. They arent, they are publicly traded privately held companies. So what gives you the "right" to tell that company what their compensation packages should be? Using your ideals what stops me from telling your company what you should make? Are we going to start getting into the togvt dictating what we are all worth?
I am not against putting restrictions on executive pay when public funds are issued to that company. But some of you are letting your envy think beyond the scope of this and it is disturbing.
Your damned right I can tell him $500K is too much when the company he's running is losing money and in need of a hand-out from the taxpayers.
Fair enough but if they don't want their compensation packages questioned they can stop putting their hand out asking for taxpayer money.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Well of course and I agreed with that. We, the public extending aid to a private company are allowed to put restrictions on it.
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
If you drive a $110 billion dollar company into bankruptcy, no, I don't think you're worth $500,000.00. Hell, I'll drive AIG into bankruptcy for $100,000.00; that's a fucking bargain compared to what they've been paying.
I think CEO pay should be based on observable performance metrics. If I were to lose $1,000.00 at my company, I would be fired. Why can a CEO lose billions and be rewarded with an exhorbitant salary funded by the American taxpayer? That's the most absurd nonsense I've ever heard.
My favorite quote from that article: "$500,000 is not a lot of money, particularly if there is no bonus"... If you can't manage to live on $500,000.00 a year, your money management skills are so shitty that you shouldn't be in charge of your local neighborhood watch budget, let alone a billion dollar company. These CEOs have enjoyed years and years of unprecedented buildup of wealth, even as their companies faltered. They have enough in savings to retire themeselves, their children and their children's children comfortably, and if they don't, that's their own fault for blowing the biggest compensation packages the world has ever seen. I feel absolutely no sympathy for anyone in that position, and bitching about $500,000.00 a year when you're a fucking millionaire is the most arrogant bullshit you could possibly do. These people deserve fuck all. They have led the most blessed lives you can have on this planet and it still isn't enough? Fuck them.
I am not arguing that point for private companies. I am in agreement with you. If they are not sucking off the goverment teat to stay alive they can do whatever they want in terms of compensation. If they have gotten to the point that they need tax payer dollars to survive then they can agree to reign in excessive executive compensation or they can pound sand.
Our tax payer dollars shouldn't reward retards that ran companies into the ground while collecting multi-million dollar salaries. Hell.. give me 100K and I can do the same thing.. only for cheaper.
So, we are going to hold to account all these CEOs because the government is giving them money to sustain themselves, and that is ok with everyone.
Well what about the flip sides of that coin?
why are we not putting expectations and holding people who are on welfare every day accountable?
we can't cap their income but we can make them do community service for the money.
Well what about the flip sides of that coin?
why are we not putting expectations and holding people who are on welfare every day accountable?
we can't cap their income but we can make them do community service for the money.
Children comprise approximately 2/3rds of the people on welfare. We're obviously not going to set the kids to work, so that knocks out the significant majority of people. As for the rest, one of the largest reasons the mothers are on welfare is because someone has to take care of the kids at home. Sending the mothers out to do community service, thus necessitating child care, would defeat the entire purpose of the program.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Thus perpetuating dependence. Maybe it's not the welfare recipient we should looking at but the welfare program and model since it has very little/no accountablility and is self perpetuating. Anyway, it's off-topic a tad.
To say the system has very little/no accountability is simply false, (and has been false for more than a decade) and I'm not even going to touch the 'perpetuating dependence' thing. But yes, very off topic.
That's real slick. Turning a thread about the current state of CEO compensation around against welfare. I'm actually kind of in awe.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
Quite wrong - it has very little accountablity and only slightly off-topic as it was an analogy. It doesn't quite work as an analogy but the point is still something to consider. But hey continue on if you must.
As to my earlier question - it seems that only NEW "exceptional assistance" issuances from TARP will have the salary cap. So while the socialists and jealous "rich" haters cheer this from BHO - the big ones have already gotten their chunk of the money.
Of course they aren't going to retroactively take money back from people who already got it, how would that even be possible? As for your ideas about welfare, they are predictably ill informed, and your misconceptions predictably fall on the ultra right part of the spectrum. (gee, bet nobody saw that coming). Now I will predict a several page gay dance from you filled with eye rolling emoticons and descents into pedantry after you are schooled on the subject. You're CAD afterall.
I'm sorry if you think that only socialists and rich haters are against giving billions in public money to failed and incompetent managers, but that would put you on the lunatic fringe of the American right. Then again, I'm sure you're comfortable there.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:roll: Where did you get the idea that they'd take the money back? I suggested no such thing would happen. The question was - how do they expect these companies to break employment contracts because they took the money. The answer - which wasn't clear when BHO made his statement was that it only applies to NEW "exceptional assistance" issuances from TARP - and is not retroactive to those who already have obtained funds.
I was unaware that anyone actually thought the president was going to engage in a large scale attempt to seize and remove funds from the bank accounts of hundreds or thousands of employees of American companies based on the idea of an agreement that nobody ever signed on to. Guess common sense really isn't common, huh? Why would you even feel the need to state something wasn't going to happen, that no sane person has ever suggested would? (and certainly no one in the thread suggested it before you came to throw your two cents in.)
Nice eye roll though, prediction 1 has come true!
Stupid rule.
Why not apply rules that no Congressmen get junkets or pay until all earmarks are gone or the budget is balanced?
Why is the rule for responsibility ok for corporate types but not government types?
Why not apply rules that no Congressmen get junkets or pay until all earmarks are gone or the budget is balanced?
Why is the rule for responsibility ok for corporate types but not government types?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter