Can wild CEO Pay Be Tamed? Probably Not

[AnonymousIV]

Pay teachers decent salaries and there will be less average workers. You expect so much of the American people, and in turn, we have expectations. Why does that seem unreasonable?

 

[alan1]

Pay teachers decent salaries and there will be less average workers. You expect so much of the American people, and in turn, we have expectations. Why does that seem unreasonable?

What do you find indecent about teacher salaries?

 

[Sallow]

Average workers are nothing special, who the fuck cares what they earn?

And there's the rub. Average workers actually earn their pay. Their labor adds value to the company because they are meeting the promises made by the CEO. CEO's however and in many cases, do not add value. Quite the contrary..they extract value. Take the case of Dick Fuld. He ran Lehman into the ground and showed "value" by cooking the books with accounting tricks. Lehman had also leveraged itself by using derivatives..which turned out to be a huge blunder. That's thanks to Fuld.

 

[Sallow]

I showed you that 5 years ago it was 200 times more than the average employee and now its 320 times. But the average worker hasn't gotten a raise in 30 years.

At what point will you agree that maybe the workers should get a raise? Just curious.

My advice to you,
Don't be an average worker.

You mean there is a way to be "reborn" as a rich dude?

Cool. Share it.

 

[Sallow]

The CEO's are literally skimming profits first. Does his leadership or the average worker's trade create the profit? I think that is the question, not spending on poverty. I mean can't CEO's see they need to be more ingratiating? Will there pay continue to skyrocket? Somewhere these guys need to come back to reality. I mean there is compensation for intelligence, sure, and leadership sure. But, they are over the top. And I vote to the right.

Wiseacre sometimes pride

And that's why the progressive tax system was introduced. And it worked great. It encouraged investment. Why? Because many of these guys are loathe to "give" their money to the government. Instead, they put that money into their company or their workers. This was working great until someone had the great idea to cut taxes on the top earners. The theory being, that the top earners would invest more of the cash they held. And that theory couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Artevelde]

Lehman Bros.’ Richard Fuld, $40 million.
Merrill Lynch’s Stanley O’Neal, $46 million.
Bear Stearns' James Cayne, $40 million.
Freddie Mac’s Richard Syron, just shy of $20 million.
Fannie Mae’s Daniel Mudd, $12.2 million.

As the nation’s financial system was crumbling, the CEOs who were in charge of the most troubled financial firms pocketed fat paychecks during their final full year on the job — and that doesn’t include the golden parachutes they got when they walked away.
Public outrage over this disconnect has caused Congress to step in and try to do something about skyrocketing executive compensation. But history shows that government attempts have been weak, at best, when it comes to curtailing CEO riches.
Why? Because regulators never go far enough in giving shareholders a true voice. It’s difficult to break up entrenched boards of directors that make the decisions on executive compensation.
Even the $700 billion bailout package that is fighting for life on Capitol Hill doesn’t have the teeth to put a lid on these financial windfalls, experts say.
Over the past two decades, efforts by government officials to rein in the big payouts, including changes to the tax code and calls for more oversight, have actually contributed to the growth in CEO pay — now 275 times the salary of the average working stiff, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
“Government regulators are notoriously ineffective at reining in pay, and oftentimes the unintended consequences caused greater problems,” says Charles Elson, an expert on corporate governance at the University of Delaware.
Let’s go back to the mid-1980s when the public also was outraged about executives getting huge payouts as a result of the merger mania at the time. The government and investors wanted to make sure managers were selling companies because it was financially prudent, not because they would walk away with huge severance packages.
These concerns resulted in a 1986 change in the tax code creating a penalty tax on excessive golden parachute payments more than three times an executive's base pay.
What happened after that, says Steve Van Putten, a senior executive pay consultant for Watson Wyatt in Boston, was that companies started paying this penalty tax for executives, a process called grossing up. And the three-times base pay limit became the standard for many parachutes that were once well below that.
In 1992, the Securities and Exchange Commission introduced proxy disclosure rules taking information about executive compensation that was once narrative and thin on numerical values, and putting actual numbers out there for all to see.
“It became very transparent, and a CEO at one company could see what another was making so they’d say, ‘Hey, I want to be making that,’ ” says Van Putten.
The big change — one that many compensation experts and shareholder advocates point to as a turning point that led to the obscene CEO paychecks we’re dealing with today — came in 1993 with tax code provision 162(m) that limited tax deductibility for executive pay at $1 million. The exception to the rule was for pay that was considered “performance-based” compensation, like, you guessed it, stock options.
“As a result, stock options have gone crazy,” says Mel Fugate, assistant management professor at the Cox School of Business at Southern Methodist University. Under the rule, for example, a CEO could get $1 million in base pay and $400 million in stock options.
This focus on stock options created a volatile mix, boosting incentives for executives to make risky business moves in order to boost a company’s stock price.
That’s exactly what has happened with the subprime mess that led to the downfall of so many old and established Wall Street firms.
“Certainly, compensation practices at these companies have been a major contributor to the financial crisis,” says Paul Hodgson, a senior analyst at the Corporate Library, an independent governance research organization.
Alas, government intervention thus far has been “an unmitigated disaster,” adds Alan Johnson, a compensation consultant. “I would think if you went back 20 years or so, you’d see it’s enriched consultants like me, lawyers, accountants. It was wasted time and money and didn’t reduce pay. It was so poorly designed, so full of loopholes, and so silly.”
So, what needs to be done to finally clamp down on CEO pay and incentives that encourage short-term gains, but do little for the long-term health of the nation’s corporations?

Can wild CEO pay be tamed? Probably not - Economy in Turmoil - MSNBC.com

I agree. Probably not.

 

[Artevelde]

They are in unions idiot! Employees making a lot. You think I have a problem with that? Screen Actors Guild. Thank a union!

But I bet you did have a problem with NBA players making too much, right?

See, in a union, the CEO wouldn't make as much because the employees would get profit sharing. It wouldn't be "passed on to the consumer" either. That's just a lie they tell you.

In a free market, incomes and wealth are obtained through the sum of innumerable voluntary exchanges. As Robert Nozick calls it, “capitalist acts between consenting adults.”

a. Nozick’s example: ““Now suppose that Wilt Chamberlain is greatly in demand by basketball teams, being a great gate attraction…He signs the following sort of contract with a team: In each home game, twenty-five cents from the price of each ticket of admission goes to him…The season starts, and people cheerfully attend his team’s games; they buy their tickets, each time dropping a separate twenty-five cents of their admission price into a special box with Chamberlain’s name on it. They are excited about seeing him play; it is worth the total admission price to them. Let us suppose that in one season one million persons attend his home games, and Wilt Chamberlain winds up with $250,000, a much larger sum than the average income and larger even than anyone else has. Is he entitled to this income? Is this new distribution unjust?”

b. So, then, what should a government do as far as mandating ‘fairness”? “The exercise of state power is not the action of a separate entity with moral rights greater than those of individual persons, rights to use force against persons for reasons that would not justify the use of force by individuals or groups of individuals per se…individual rights and duties are the basis of what governments may and should do.” Thomas Nagel, “Other Minds: Critical Essays, 1969-1994,” p. 141.

Government's place in redistribution of wealth should be limited. That's not to say government should never do anything to encourage some redistribution. A situation in which either all capital is in the hands of the few or is equally distributed is certainly not beneficial to society. If capitalism is properly regulated, then neither extreme will occur.

That's reasonable.

 

[editec]

It is none of my business if some corporation want to pay their CEOs to lose money for them.

And the government has no role in deciding what these CEOs make, either.

If the stockholders are stupid enough to put up with this nonsense, that's their problem.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If only Democrats cared 1% as much as what government spends compared to the effort they spend looking in our pockets...

if only

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.


What was the question again?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.


What was the question again?

What is your conceptual continuity?

 

[The Rabbi]

I showed you that 5 years ago it was 200 times more than the average employee and now its 320 times. But the average worker hasn't gotten a raise in 30 years.

At what point will you agree that maybe the workers should get a raise? Just curious.

Do you set wages in this country? Does Don't Taz Me Bro? Then why is it your business who gets a raise or not?
Why should they get raises?

Ok, so the cost of living goes up and inflation occurs and for 30 years, you don't get a raise. But you see the profits are up and the CEO's psy has gone up in the last 5 years from 200 times what I make to 320 times what I make.

Am I in a union? Because if I'm in a union, through collective bargaining we would all get cost of living increases at least. And probably profit sharing.

If I'm not in a union, I don't say a word. I just keep working harder for less. This is what people are doing. Have you seen the numbers? Republicans have been flashing these facts and blaming them on Obama, so I know you understand wages are down. You just don't want to take responsibility.

You wanted low paying jobs. You cried that people were making $35 hr but now complain that the jobs came back at $10.

This is why I think we need to have a rebirth of the unions. Teachers, police, auto workers and firefighters and other government employees are under attack. The rich politicians are cutting their pay and giving it to the rich and the corporations.

You know what? I'm wasting my breath so I'm going to stop. It would take a book to explain to you why you are wrong. Based on your question, I'm wasting my time. Next.

What difference does it make whether the cost of living has gone up 5% or 5000%. Do people get raises based on such factors?
Would you rather have jobs at $10/hr or no job at all? Because that is the choice.
All you have is class envy. Look, they're making more than me! Unfair!
Stuff it, junior. Life is unfair. People get paid what they are worth. An excellent employee will be getting raises all along as he increases his value to the company. A poor employee needs a union to protect him. Unions support mediocrity. There is not an industry in this country dominated by unions that has not needed gov't bailouts and has not resulted in large bankruptcies.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.


What was the question again?

What is your conceptual continuity?

As I saw ome of the typical redistribution talks within this thread, it appears that the conceptual continuity is that the govt. is already doing wealth redistribution as it always happens in central planning. Favoritism for "friends" at the expense of competition and taxpayers. The CEO's of these companies got their 2008 and 2012 bonuses off the backs of taxpayers through the lender of last resort. The state sponsored banking cartel known as the federal reseerve with the aid of terrible policies in the halls of congress and the treasury.

If these companies had no federal handouts, they would all be bankrupt and gone. The rate of pay factor is largely guided and admissioned off the government. So the concept of the govt. doing more redistribution is where the progressives are standing on their heads. More of what isn't working isn't going to miraculously begin working...it's the definition of insanity thing.

 

[Sallow]

Freddie and Fannie are state sponsored. Bear Stearns was bought by JP Morgan in 2008. Another state sponsored monopoly. Lehman Bros. failed and was given a state sponsored parachute. Merrill Lynch is a capital management offshoot of BoA. Another state sponsored monopoly.


What was the question again?

What is your conceptual continuity?

As I saw ome of the typical redistribution talks within this thread, it appears that the conceptual continuity is that the govt. is already doing wealth redistribution as it always happens in central planning. Favoritism for "friends" at the expense of competition and taxpayers. The CEO's of these companies got their 2008 and 2012 bonuses off the backs of taxpayers through the lender of last resort. The state sponsored banking cartel known as the federal reseerve with the aid of terrible policies in the halls of congress and the treasury.

If these companies had no federal handouts, they would all be bankrupt and gone. The rate of pay factor is largely guided and admissioned off the government. So the concept of the govt. doing more redistribution is where the progressives are standing on their heads. More of what isn't working isn't going to miraculously begin working...it's the definition of insanity thing.

The government is doing this wealth redistribution at the behest of the corporations. They are the ones writing the checks..and putting up legislators that will be favorable to their bottom line. Seriously..what happened after they bailouts? Not much really. Dodd/Frank is about as weak a regulatory bill as these corporate entities could hope for..and they do very little to curtail the derivative trading that got the economy into the mess in the first place. No one went to jail and banks went along merrily foreclosing on millions of homes.

This is exactly what happens when you concentrate the wealth of a country into the hands of a few. They will make sure that conditions will stay that way..

 

[Sallow]

Do you set wages in this country? Does Don't Taz Me Bro? Then why is it your business who gets a raise or not?
Why should they get raises?

Ok, so the cost of living goes up and inflation occurs and for 30 years, you don't get a raise. But you see the profits are up and the CEO's psy has gone up in the last 5 years from 200 times what I make to 320 times what I make.

Am I in a union? Because if I'm in a union, through collective bargaining we would all get cost of living increases at least. And probably profit sharing.

If I'm not in a union, I don't say a word. I just keep working harder for less. This is what people are doing. Have you seen the numbers? Republicans have been flashing these facts and blaming them on Obama, so I know you understand wages are down. You just don't want to take responsibility.

You wanted low paying jobs. You cried that people were making $35 hr but now complain that the jobs came back at $10.

This is why I think we need to have a rebirth of the unions. Teachers, police, auto workers and firefighters and other government employees are under attack. The rich politicians are cutting their pay and giving it to the rich and the corporations.

You know what? I'm wasting my breath so I'm going to stop. It would take a book to explain to you why you are wrong. Based on your question, I'm wasting my time. Next.

What difference does it make whether the cost of living has gone up 5% or 5000%. Do people get raises based on such factors?
Would you rather have jobs at $10/hr or no job at all? Because that is the choice.
All you have is class envy. Look, they're making more than me! Unfair!
Stuff it, junior. Life is unfair. People get paid what they are worth. An excellent employee will be getting raises all along as he increases his value to the company. A poor employee needs a union to protect him. Unions support mediocrity. There is not an industry in this country dominated by unions that has not needed gov't bailouts and has not resulted in large bankruptcies.

That's complete bullshit.

 

[Katzndogz]

I started a company 10 years ago and hired some workers for $30K each and I hit it big. I should say we but I'm a Republican so I think I did it all myself. Anyways, the first year my take home was $100K. The next year it was $200K. The 3rd year it was $300K and it went up another $100K every year after that for 10 years in a row. I make $1 million dollars a year.

But I never gave those employees raise. Fuck em. I could hire other people for $30K. Why should I have given them a raise. They didn't take any risk. I did. Me, me, me.

If after ten years your employees are still worth $30,000 a year and could be replaced by anyone else, then you chose your employees poorly. I have owned, operated and run for others several businesses. Other than nominal perfunctory raises, everytime someone came to me to ask for more money I would discuss what they could do to be worth more money.

There were some who saw their jobs as something that interfered with their personal pursuits. They never got a raise. Ultimately they were replaced.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What is your conceptual continuity?

As I saw ome of the typical redistribution talks within this thread, it appears that the conceptual continuity is that the govt. is already doing wealth redistribution as it always happens in central planning. Favoritism for "friends" at the expense of competition and taxpayers. The CEO's of these companies got their 2008 and 2012 bonuses off the backs of taxpayers through the lender of last resort. The state sponsored banking cartel known as the federal reseerve with the aid of terrible policies in the halls of congress and the treasury.

If these companies had no federal handouts, they would all be bankrupt and gone. The rate of pay factor is largely guided and admissioned off the government. So the concept of the govt. doing more redistribution is where the progressives are standing on their heads. More of what isn't working isn't going to miraculously begin working...it's the definition of insanity thing.

The government is doing this wealth redistribution at the behest of the corporations. They are the ones writing the checks..and putting up legislators that will be favorable to their bottom line. Seriously..what happened after they bailouts? Not much really. Dodd/Frank is about as weak a regulatory bill as these corporate entities could hope for..and they do very little to curtail the derivative trading that got the economy into the mess in the first place. No one went to jail and banks went along merrily foreclosing on millions of homes.

This is exactly what happens when you concentrate the wealth of a country into the hands of a few. They will make sure that conditions will stay that way..

The govt. running of the economy, AKA 'central planning', is how these monopolies, state sponsored as they are, managed to attain their levels of wealth. SO the question is not how can government do a better job at central planning, because central planning does not work. The question is, how do we get government to stop trying to run the economy and allow for more competition, less favoritism and upholding the rule of law of the land.

Their need not be harsher regulation from govt. as it will only do what is best for the state sponsored monopolies that have been fostered and secured under govt. intrusion. This goes right down to the root of the problem which is paper money and the wielder of the printing press. Until we address these problems, it will alll remain the same. More of bad govt. policy by harsher regulation on some (considering govt. grew those monopolies through this process) will not do anything.

Government can not effectively plan things centrally. The best government is the one that governs the least.

 

[Sallow]

As I saw ome of the typical redistribution talks within this thread, it appears that the conceptual continuity is that the govt. is already doing wealth redistribution as it always happens in central planning. Favoritism for "friends" at the expense of competition and taxpayers. The CEO's of these companies got their 2008 and 2012 bonuses off the backs of taxpayers through the lender of last resort. The state sponsored banking cartel known as the federal reseerve with the aid of terrible policies in the halls of congress and the treasury.

If these companies had no federal handouts, they would all be bankrupt and gone. The rate of pay factor is largely guided and admissioned off the government. So the concept of the govt. doing more redistribution is where the progressives are standing on their heads. More of what isn't working isn't going to miraculously begin working...it's the definition of insanity thing.

The government is doing this wealth redistribution at the behest of the corporations. They are the ones writing the checks..and putting up legislators that will be favorable to their bottom line. Seriously..what happened after they bailouts? Not much really. Dodd/Frank is about as weak a regulatory bill as these corporate entities could hope for..and they do very little to curtail the derivative trading that got the economy into the mess in the first place. No one went to jail and banks went along merrily foreclosing on millions of homes.

This is exactly what happens when you concentrate the wealth of a country into the hands of a few. They will make sure that conditions will stay that way..

The govt. running of the economy, AKA 'central planning', is how these monopolies, state sponsored as they are, managed to attain their levels of wealth. SO the question is not how can government do a better job at central planning, because central planning does not work. The question is, how do we get government to stop trying to run the economy and allow for more competition, less favoritism and upholding the rule of law of the land.

Their need not be harsher regulation from govt. as it will only do what is best for the state sponsored monopolies that have been fostered and secured under govt. intrusion. This goes right down to the root of the problem which is paper money and the wielder of the printing press. Until we address these problems, it will alll remain the same. More of bad govt. policy by harsher regulation on some (considering govt. grew those monopolies through this process) will not do anything.

Government can not effectively plan things centrally. The best government is the one that governs the least.

Sure it can. It was Teddy Roosevelt that broke up big monopolies in the first place. The problem has become our corporate entities have co-opted legislation...in that they actually are writing the laws. For the last 30 or so years, our government has been reversing much of the regulatory structure that kept the economy robust from the 1950s to the 1980s. Totally "Free" markets don't support competition. Never has. You get more bang for the buck getting rid of competitors by either merging with them..or destroying their business.

It seems you see the problem..you just don't like the solution.

 

[eflatminor]

The government is doing this wealth redistribution at the behest of the corporations.

Does your realization here mean you'll no longer support politicians that redistribute "at the behest of the corporations"? Have we uncovered a new Ron Paul supporter???

 

[TakeAStepBack]

the solution of wealth redistribution is not a solution. That is why I reject it. It is this very policy of redistribution via favoritism that is the problem. Therefore, more of it is not going to solve the problem. That's like standing on your head to get blood tot he feet.

The regulatory structure in place was not the cause for the psuedo-robust economy of the 50s - 80s. Which actually, is a falsehood in even saying so. The problem is not one thing but ahost of them that come down to two main problems. Central planning and terrible, awful monetary policies.

50s - 80s was all debt incurrance from unsustainable social programs and wars. What we see today, after leaving th egold standard completely in 71, in the end of inflationary ammo t keep creating booms and busts. The appearance of a healthy economy via the printing press has run its course and will fail as all fiat systems fail.