"U.S. to Order Steep Pay Cuts at Firms That Got Most Aid"

[glenn1]

I'm glad to see the government is doing their best to finish off the companies they bailed out by decimating the company's leadership ranks. It'll make the short sales on those companies that much more profitable and cost the government that much more money that they would have otherwise spent on some social program.

 

[MotF Bane]

That's fucking retarded.

 

[Jhhnn]

Face it- the govt basically owns these companies. That means if the execs don't like it, they can quit. The whole notion of *STAR!* executive talent is utterly overblown, anyway. There are lots of people, equally talented, who'll do the job as well or better than their overpaid predecessor.

Remarkable how the rightwing holds that for labor, paying less is always better, but for execs, the opposite holds true. Hogwash- the blathering of propagandized wannabees...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Face it- the govt basically owns these companies. That means if the execs don't like it, they can quit. The whole notion of *STAR!* executive talent is utterly overblown, anyway. There are lots of people, equally talented, who'll do the job as well or better than their overpaid predecessor.

Remarkable how the rightwing holds that for labor, paying less is always better, but for execs, the opposite holds true. Hogwash- the blathering of propagandized wannabees...

Nonsense. Rightwing believes in getting paid what you are worth and what the market will pay. You don't quite understand how business works if you believe other quality candidates will do the same job for 90% less than what they could get elsewhere.

In a bidding or RFP process you always look closely at a super low bidder - "why are they that low, what are they skimping on, maybe they aren't qualified for this work, etc"

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Can we cut congress' salary by 50% for helping to create the financial meltdown as well?

I wish they would do this. Our politicans should only be making what the average household income is imo. When the census comes out and it says the average household makes 45k a year, that should be their salary for the next year. We need to get rid of the people that turn politics into a career 99.999% of them do.

I'm not sure that restricting congressmens' pay to the median salary of their constituency would even be much of an incentive. Aren't most congressmen pretty wealthy even before they take office? I suspect most of them take a pay cut to become a senator or representative as it is. They could probably live just fine off of passive income or other sources (speaking, books, part-time consulting, etc.).

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Face it- the govt basically owns these companies. That means if the execs don't like it, they can quit. The whole notion of *STAR!* executive talent is utterly overblown, anyway. There are lots of people, equally talented, who'll do the job as well or better than their overpaid predecessor.

Remarkable how the rightwing holds that for labor, paying less is always better, but for execs, the opposite holds true. Hogwash- the blathering of propagandized wannabees...

Nonsense. Rightwing believes in getting paid what you are worth and what the market will pay. You don't quite understand how business works if you believe other quality candidates will do the same job for 90% less than what they could get elsewhere.

In a bidding or RFP process you always look closely at a super low bidder - "why are they that low, what are they skimping on, maybe they aren't qualified for this work, etc"

If they're so talented then they shouldn'thave any problems finding a beeter job. It is still a free market and they are free to not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows


If they're so talented then they shouldn'thave any problems finding a beeter job. It is still a free market and they are free to not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

While that's true companies view and use their compensation as a means to draw and keep the best they can because of your very point.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: CPA
While I am sure many on this board won't care, most of those executives are going to leave. And I suspect it will be difficult to replace them with high enough qualified people. Remember that many of the execs now with the companies weren't there during the fallout.

Highly qualified people like the ones that caused their own companies to crash and burn and need a government bailout?

The thing you have to understand is that the decisions made by these people WERE the most intelligent way to approach the market. They had an incentive to take very large risks. IF they won they would make tens or hundreds of millions, if the lost they would still make their "guaranteed" few million. The incentive packages and government bailouts made a "no lose" situation, if you win you keep the moeny, if you lose the tax payers keep the bill. Any intelligent person would have done what these people did and taken the money. I doubt anyone here can say they wouldn't take 50 million even if it meant that there was a 50% chance 500 people would lose their jobs. I know i sure as hell would.

It just like when California passed their new market based electricity pricing rules several years ago which essentially (with a few obviously loopholes) allowed utilities to specify whatever price they wanted to sell electricity at. It didn't exactly take a genius to figure out that a company like Enron would exploit the loopholes to screw people out of money. When government regulators pass laws that make it profitable to screw people over nobody should be surprised when someone uses that to make money.

In the case of Enron it was politicians falling victim to Enron and other companies propaganda that deregulating electricity would lower prices. In the case of this recession it was due to governments trying to push the idea that EVERYONE should be able to own a home despite the fact that there are simply people who are too irresponsible to handle such a large loan and borrowed more then they could afford. In both cases it was politicians meddling that resulted in the rules being changed such the best way to make a profit also turned out to be completely unsustainable and immoral actions.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
If they're so talented then they shouldn'thave any problems finding a better job. It is still a free market and they are free to not let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.

well that'd be just swell if your goal is to put those companies out of business, but wouldn't that be a little silly after all the money we've invested in said companies?

The last thing we need at any of the bailed out companies is a top-level brain drain. If we (the people) want these U.S. companies to succeed and remain truly competitive in the global market, it would be fucking stupid to gimp them for any period of time.

As long as they continue to pay back the money by the agreed upon terms, there is no reason to restrict them, or attempt to control them, in any other way.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Can we cut congress' salary by 50% for helping to create the financial meltdown as well?

I wish they would do this. Our politicans should only be making what the average household income is imo. When the census comes out and it says the average household makes 45k a year, that should be their salary for the next year. We need to get rid of the people that turn politics into a career 99.999% of them do.

nice try, but no..that wouldn't work at all..then cash would just come in some other form

there's no way positions of such power can be abuse proof

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
there's no way positions of such power can be abuse proof

If congress was legally obligated to follow the constitution and point out what article/section of the constitution authorized legislation that would be the first step.

After all, any power not given to the federal government in the constitution is reserved to the states.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: LumbergTech
there's no way positions of such power can be abuse proof

If congress was legally obligated to follow the constitution and point out what article/section of the constitution authorized legislation that would be the first step.

After all, any power not given to the federal government in the constitution is reserved to the states.

out of curiosity how often do you think that the actions of congress are constitutional? if you were to guess

doesn't sound like a totally bad idea to me although unfortunately we have this thing called interpretation ..so while it might cause them to have to argue a bit more, im sure that the constitution would be spun (just as it is in other areas) to mean whatever the congress people wanted it to mean

 

[LumbergTech]

another question i have about this whole thing...

ok..they took bailouts..they want to impose limits...fine..but for how long? how long must they go without another bailout before the gov no longer has a say?

to be clear, im not necessarily against some kind of restrictions being imposed ..i dont oppose it on ideological grounds..but im skeptical about how useful this gesture will be at getting the desired effect

 

[her209]

Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Can we cut congress' salary by 50% for helping to create the financial meltdown as well?

I wish they would do this. Our politicans should only be making what the average household income is imo. When the census comes out and it says the average household makes 45k a year, that should be their salary for the next year. We need to get rid of the people that turn politics into a career 99.999% of them do.

:thumbsup:

 

[spidey07]

Keep in mind that this was what Obama campaigned on. That if you were highly compensated you're the bad guy. He came up with the magical 250K number. I remember posting his comments about limiting compensation in like feb/march of his campaign 2008. This is what that fucker wants.

You're next.

 

[Acanthus]

My AIG stock tanked today on this news

In the administrations defense, they are advocating aggressively increasing long term incentives like stock options to offset the pay cuts. This will be strong incentive for the employees to set up the company to do well long term, instead of the short term "smash and grab economics" that is the culture at the big financial giants today.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Face it- the govt basically owns these companies. That means if the execs don't like it, they can quit. The whole notion of *STAR!* executive talent is utterly overblown, anyway. There are lots of people, equally talented, who'll do the job as well or better than their overpaid predecessor.

Remarkable how the rightwing holds that for labor, paying less is always better, but for execs, the opposite holds true. Hogwash- the blathering of propagandized wannabees...

First of all, gov. don't own these companies, tax payer like you and I own these companies with our tax dollar bailing them out.

Second, these companies have both good and bad execs just like any other companies and most likely it was those bad execs who f'ed up those companies. And you know what, the good execs is gonna leave and go to other non-bailout firm with more money, no gov. telling them how much they should earn or getting bashed everyday by the media for making too much money. The only people left is gonna be those sucky ones, and guess what's gonna happen to those companies that you and I own.

That's right, our money down the drain.

You lefty should be doing what you do best, protest on some street corner or vandalize some corporate HQ and let the economic decision to those who understand how business works.

 

[glenn1]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
My AIG stock tanked today on this news

In the administrations defense, they are advocating aggressively increasing long term incentives like stock options to offset the pay cuts. This will be strong incentive for the employees to set up the company to do well long term, instead of the short term "smash and grab economics" that is the culture at the big financial giants today.

You're partially correct - this would be a strong incentive, if the executives actually had reason to believe that the government won't change the compensation rules again later on. At this rate, the administration is hardly giving the executives reason to believe that if they'll be allowed to share in the future success on the company in return for taking a lower payout now. How do you think it will affect recruiting when the government might decide to precipitously reduce your salary on a moment's notice?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: Acanthus
My AIG stock tanked today on this news

In the administrations defense, they are advocating aggressively increasing long term incentives like stock options to offset the pay cuts. This will be strong incentive for the employees to set up the company to do well long term, instead of the short term "smash and grab economics" that is the culture at the big financial giants today.

You're partially correct - this would be a strong incentive, if the executives actually had reason to believe that the government won't change the compensation rules again later on. At this rate, the administration is hardly giving the executives reason to believe that if they'll be allowed to share in the future success on the company in return for taking a lower payout now. How do you think it will affect recruiting when the government might decide to precipitously reduce your salary on a moment's notice?

I wouldn't mind having a job at any of those bailed out companies on graduation

I think the push is to try to set a nationwide standard so that stock options are a lot heavier than cash salary in executives payrolls. This would likely include companies that have no been bailed out.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Jadow
Had they not bailed these companies out in the first place, they wouldn't be doing this as those people would have gotten 0.

No actually the people this is being imposed upon by the major shareholder aka. the U.S. government, would have recieved $$$$$$ after they finished driving the businesses into the ground.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I think the push is to try to set a nationwide standard so that stock options are a lot heavier than cash salary in executives payrolls. This would likely include companies that have no been bailed out.

That's exactly what many of us are afraid of. :|

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Can we cut congress' salary by 50% for helping to create the financial meltdown as well?

I wish they would do this. Our politicans should only be making what the average household income is imo. When the census comes out and it says the average household makes 45k a year, that should be their salary for the next year. We need to get rid of the people that turn politics into a career 99.999% of them do.

It wouldn't matter to them really. For example, in Tennessee the House rep, Jimmy Naifeh, was the former speaker. His salary as a state legislator is something like $18,000 a year. Of course his wife was earning $250,000 (with a high school education) working for a lobbyist group.

It is the same with the U.S. Congress. The yearly salary does not make them rich... steering shitloads of money to "friends" is where it is at.

But back to the OP... the reason the Obama administration wants to do this is to "protect the taxpayer"... but what will happen to the taxpayers investment when the people who steered these companies back to profitability leave?

 

[umbrella39]

This is tantamount to cutting kids allowance for being bad. Not saying it isn't deserved but that it probably won't solve a thing. Rich white guys have ways of staying rich white guys.

 

[Genx87]

So what happens if govt cuts the wage of all the rich people to the point they arent rich anymore from an income perspective? Who will pay for Obama's increase in programs?