Winston Legthigh Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 No one, I don't give a fuck who you are, needs or deserves to make $30+ million dollars a year.Needs? perhaps. But why not deserves? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So they should give it back? I don't know what these guys are supposed to do? Your just trying to be a smart ass now, maybe always. But the shareholders should have more power to penalize these guys and set contracts that yes penalizes them for poor performance. In the present case there is nothing that can be done. He has the money by virtue of a contract most likely and is not going to give any back. But perhaps the board will be more cautious with the next contract, though I seriously doubt there will be any penalties. There will probably be rewards doled out for successfully managing the company through the bankruptcy he presided over. It happened to the company my wife used to work for, so why not GM? i agree...to a certain extent. i'd just say, again, that you seem to be discounting so many levels of other management and employees below him...and that you aren't providing even strata either way. it just seems either way CEO = bad guy. i guess i don't believe that is true across the board and that there are exceptions. i also don't like the deflection from any level of accountability on individuyal employees. Goals are set from the top down. The guys at the top set the direction and are supposed to make sure that those below them have the tools needed to meet the set goals. At each level the management sets their goals to support the level above them all the way down the line. So you see I do understand the goal setting process and I know that there are levels of the company below CEO many, many levels for some and fewer levels for company like I work for, but we are not known as being top heavy. And I realize that if divisions are not meeting their goals it affects the whole company. But rarely is the bottom layer responsible for the failure of a company. Production workers are not the problem. Regardless the failure of GM is not really related to the employees as much as it has been directed from on high via the board and upper management. I know the CEO is not responsible for everything. Heck in the last eight years the CEO of the US was responsible for nothing that happened on his watch. But to put a sports analogy out there, when the team goes bad they may replace a pitcher or a third baseman, but they almost always fire the manager or the GM because those are the guys giving the team direction. The CEO of GM in conjunction (collusion?) with the BOD has misguided the company. They have a bad business model and they continue to follow it even today as they are failing. If this is not a situation for penalizing someone, then I have no idea when a true accountability moment actually occurs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 you should clarify you're only talking about public businesses. I'll clarify this for me, absolutely. Privatelyheld companies are usually run by the people that own them or the people who own them have far more control than the typical shareholder has. They can pay whatever they want, and those they hire can work for whatever they are able to negotiate. Publicly held companies should be run in the manner that best benefits the shareholders, and when it comes to executive pay they are not. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I think salaries can be whatever they want if the system was left to the open market. If a company does very well, than why not let the CEO's make millions. If not, the company should fall and company go under. CEO's getting blamed and losing their jobs. The problem is the companies are being run poorly and getting bailed out. CEOs and management still getting paid big bucks for failed actions. Where is the logic in that? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I think salaries can be whatever they want if the system was left to the open market. If a company does very well, than why not let the CEO's make millions. If not, the company should fall and company go under. CEO's getting blamed and losing their jobs. The problem is the companies are being run poorly and getting bailed out. CEOs and management still getting paid big bucks for failed actions. Where is the logic in that? This is the problem. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
futureage1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 so, again, CEO of a company that is failing should either get zero salary/compensation and/or deported...CEO of a company doing well is still way too overpaid and (still) solely responsbile for fucking the country up. makes sense to me. dude, really, shit isn't so black/white. how may actual CEO's do you know/have you met? It is very simple. If a CEO finds a multi million dollar contract from a public owned co. unacceptable then he should feel free to shop his services elsewhere. If no co. is able or willing to meet his demands in this country then he should test the free market system and offer his services in other countries instead of bitching about the lack of compensation in this country. My guess is most other countries would laugh these guys out the door with some of their salary demands and perks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Are CEOs bitching about the lack of compensation in this country? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 It is very simple. If a CEO finds a multi million dollar contract from a public owned co. unacceptable then he should feel free to shop his services elsewhere. If no co. is able or willing to meet his demands in this country then he should test the free market system and offer his services in other countries instead of bitching about the lack of compensation in this country. My guess is most other countries would laugh these guys out the door with some of their salary demands and perks. Wow. That 'you sure are' remark just lobbed itself back onto your side of the fence before it exploded. CEO's didn't walk around going "Shower me with diamonds, lowly peasants!" CEO's got the compensation they did, up until now, as a matter of fact: "I shit benjamins," they say. "Why yes, yes you do, good sir!" has been the reply. Why? The free market system. Company A is doing well, the CEO gets rewarded. Company B wants themselves a piece of that CEO and better his deal. Because he can, he probably asks for more, and that's what he gets. Like the NBA, if he doesn't do well he gets traded. No one was bitching about the lack of compensation. What you're seeing manifest in CEO's now when they're talking about how their companies can't collapse is the same damned thing the IT guy in the basement of the corporation is thinking: they're simply scared of being laid off. Whereas IT guy in the basement can get another IT job in any other basement, being the guy who ran the financial ship into the iceberg isn't exactly what you want on the top of your CV. To me, most of the greed and arrogance we're seeing right now among corporate leaders - this month, I mean, not 12/18/24 months ago - is simply fear. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I used to work for these people, who seemed to resent the fact they had to pay people to put out their newspapers. Conn AG office objects to Journal Register bonuses By KATHY MATHESON Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 No one was bitching about the lack of compensation. What you're seeing manifest in CEO's now when they're talking about how their companies can't collapse is the same damned thing the IT guy in the basement of the corporation is thinking: they're simply scared of being laid off. Whereas IT guy in the basement can get another IT job in any other basement, being the guy who ran the financial ship into the iceberg isn't exactly what you want on the top of your CV. To me, most of the greed and arrogance we're seeing right now among corporate leaders - this month, I mean, not 12/18/24 months ago - is simply fear. Sure, but the IT guy or gal would have to live hundreds and hundreds of lives before he or she could even begin to approach the golden parachute purse many CEO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Sure, but the IT guy or gal would have to live hundreds and hundreds of lives before he or she could even begin to approach the golden parachute purse many CEO Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Where do you think this "golden parachute" comes from? Are they born with it? Like a silver spoon? At the moment, in some cases, from our tax dollars. In case you hadn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 In case you hadn Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Is it really greed if their playing entirely within the rules of the game? Jules is saying - and if he isn't, I am - that CEO's don't just reach into the piggy bank and leave. There are meetings and procedures and votes and a room full of people that, together, make that decision. Whether it's ethical is an entirely different question. And on that topic... New York Attorney General Scrutinizes Merrill Lynch Bonuses New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is investigating Merrill Lynch Quote Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Are CEOs bitching about the lack of compensation in this country? No, but they are not happy that we know how much they make. CEO's didn't walk around going "Shower me with diamonds, lowly peasants!" CEO's got the compensation they did, up until now, as a matter of fact: "I shit benjamins," they say. "Why yes, yes you do, good sir!" has been the reply. Why? The free market system. Company A is doing well, the CEO gets rewarded. Company B wants themselves a piece of that CEO and better his deal. Because he can, he probably asks for more, and that's what he gets. Like the NBA, if he doesn't do well he gets traded. No one was bitching about the lack of compensation. What you're seeing manifest in CEO's now when they're talking about how their companies can't collapse is the same damned thing the IT guy in the basement of the corporation is thinking: they're simply scared of being laid off. Whereas IT guy in the basement can get another IT job in any other basement, being the guy who ran the financial ship into the iceberg isn't exactly what you want on the top of your CV. To me, most of the greed and arrogance we're seeing right now among corporate leaders - this month, I mean, not 12/18/24 months ago - is simply fear. I beg to differ here. When offered top notch positions, they bargain hard for their salary benfits etc. They really do, and some have a real sense of entitlement regarding their salary and perks. We recently switched CEO's from an old school type to a new modern type and the change was light night and day. Salary increased 3x and the perks changed dramatically. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 And nobody had ANY clue that the companies' banking practices were not sustainable? Nobody had any clue that these people, put in such a position, wouldn't do that? Executive pay and bonuses are obscene, yeah, but who had their heads in the sand? Forbes magazine sustains itself by publishing those millions of lists annually about who's making what, and only now that the ship is sinking we cry foul? Again, I want to know why we expected anything else of these executives. If what they did was legal, then they didn't just stick their hand in the piggy bank and leave - they did what anyone should have expected them to do in that situation. If what they did was illegal, our justice system will likely slap them on the wrist, as we would expect it to do in that situation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 No, but they are not happy that we know how much they make. Not anymore maybe, but for a long time it was bragging rights. Probably still is, to an extent. I beg to differ here. When offered top notch positions, they bargain hard for their salary benfits etc. They really do, and some have a real sense of entitlement regarding their salary and perks. I address that in the paragraph you're quoting. They do it because they can, and the companies have historically had no problem meeting those demands. If companies didn't want to pay them that much, they wouldn't; the whole thing is systemic and while the executives are the ones benefiting, we absolutely will not make any headway if they are the only ones we blame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 If what they did was legal, then they didn't just stick their hand in the piggy bank and leave - they did what anyone should have expected them to do in that situation. If what they did was illegal, our justice system will likely slap them on the wrist, as we would expect it to do in that situation. Sure, but doesn't it blur the lines just a bit when the only reason that what they did is legal is because their lobbyists wrote the laws making it legal? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 And nobody had ANY clue that the companies' banking practices were not sustainable? Nobody had any clue that these people, put in such a position, wouldn't do that? Executive pay and bonuses are obscene, yeah, but who had their heads in the sand? Forbes magazine sustains itself by publishing those millions of lists annually about who's making what, and only now that the ship is sinking we cry foul? Again, I want to know why we expected anything else of these executives.I'm pretty sure people have been bitching about how much these executives make for quite some time now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 There is a dude on The Inspiration Channel with a wig on and a bad face job trying to get people to send the network 777 dollars. I think this is what he is promising for the donation: . . .He will grant us physical healings, financial breakthroughs, restored relationships, and victory over the enemy. Invite your friends and loved ones to join us for this LIVE broadcast of Spring CAMPMEETING 2009, where they can discover the Power and Provision available through a Covenant Relationship with God! I sometimes wonder how people get away with doing that sort of thing. I find it particularly troubling that someone would prey on those who have lost their jobs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Finally, some sense is injected into this "wah, wah, I have to pay more taxes" whining. War on the Rich?The bogus GOP claim that Obama is trying to bleed wealthy Americans.By Daniel GrossPosted Thursday, March 5, 2009, at 6:09 PM ET To hear conservatives tell it, you'd think mobs of shiftless welfare moms were marauding through the streets of Greenwich and Palm Springs, lynching bankers and hedge-fund managers, stringing up shopkeepers, and herding lawyers into internment camps. President Obama and his budgeteers, they say, have declared war on the rich. On Tuesday, Washington Post columnist (and former Bush speechwriter) Michael Gerson argued in an op-ed that "Obama chose a time of recession to propose a massive increase in progressivity Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 There is a dude on The Inspiration Channel with a wig on and a bad face job trying to get people to send the network 777 dollars. I think this is what he is promising for the donation: I sometimes wonder how people get away with doing that sort of thing. I find it particularly troubling that someone would prey on those who have lost their jobs. Unfortunately, it Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 There is a dude on The Inspiration Channel with a wig on and a bad face job trying to get people to send the network 777 dollars. I think this is what he is promising for the donation: I sometimes wonder how people get away with doing that sort of thing. I find it particularly troubling that someone would prey on those who have lost their jobs. I think Bono said it best: My God ain't short of cash Mr. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rusty Shackleford Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 It's hard to overstate how absurd these claims are. First, let's talk about the "massive increase in progressivity" that Gerson deplores. It consists largely (but not exclusively) of returning marginal tax rates to their levels of 2001, before Gerson and the epically incompetent Bush administration of which he was a part got their hands on the reins of power. Obama wants to let marginal rates for families with taxable income (not total income, but taxable income) of more than $250,000 revert from 33 percent to 36 percent, and to let the top rate Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Sort of maybe related in a way but also sort of not. Though I do not agree with everything Peter Singer is proposing, I applaud his nerve, straightforwardness and the underlying sentiment. What Should a Billionaire Give Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.