Selective Salary Caps.

[Againsheila]

Like I said before, you can share the fortunes and misfortunes of the company by buying stock. If you had an employment contract that stated you had to stay on for a specified time or pay a penalty, that might be an option. Many peolpe just leave in hard times and would stick the company.

They GAVE me company stock, part of an agreement with the union. It was worth $4000 when I got it. I kept it, didn't sell it and the company tanked, when the stock reached $500, they bought me out. I didn't have a choice in that either. Guess I should have sold when it was $4000 rather than holding on to it for my possible retirement.

Nope, no sympathy for corporations here.

This thread wasn't about your feeling about companies. It was about CEO compensation. Then you hijacked it the first time to discuss what you fely was your due.

In a recent post, you stated you would share in the down times too. Sounds like you did. Quit your bitching.

I have no problem capping their salaries at about 50 times what their workers make. There is not excuse, no reason for them to make more than that. Nobody needs that much money and nobody "earns" that much money. As I said, if we have a maximum wage, maybe the lower paid workers would actually make enough money to put a roof over their heads.

One more time, remember the French Revolution? No country can long survive the huge income gap we have in our country right now.

 

[boedicca]

Why is it any of your business what the shareholders of companies are willing to pay their executives?

If you are a shareholder - vote. If not, then boycott the companies if they offend you.

 

[Againsheila]

Why is it any of your business what the shareholders of companies are willing to pay their executives?

If you are a shareholder - vote. If not, then boycott the companies if they offend you.

It's my country they are ruining, therefore it is my business.

 

[kyzr]

Why is it any of your business what the shareholders of companies are willing to pay their executives? If you are a shareholder - vote. If not, then boycott the companies if they offend you.

This is the part you don't get. The shareholders have zero say what the CEO gets paid, tell me you believe that votes get counted?. The Board rubber-stamps what the CEO wants, and so does the compensation committee. IMHO the government needs to set compensation caps. If the CEOs don't like it they can work elsewhere. Look at Ken Lay and the other recent CEO crooks...I rest my case.

 

[boedicca]

Why is it any of your business what the shareholders of companies are willing to pay their executives?

If you are a shareholder - vote. If not, then boycott the companies if they offend you.

It's my country they are ruining, therefore it is my business.

Then stop bailing out the bad actors and punishing the honest ones.

 

[boedicca]

This is the part you don't get. The shareholders have zero say what the CEO gets paid, tell me you believe that votes get counted?. The Board rubber-stamps what the CEO wants, and so does the compensation committee. IMHO the government needs to set compensation caps. If the CEOs don't like it they can work elsewhere. Look at Ken Lay and the other recent CEO crooks...I rest my case.

That is patently false.

The shareholder can sell the stock if he doesn't like how the company is run. That's the most effect vote their is. They also elect boards of directors - and vote on various measures.

At the end of the day, it is a voluntary relationship.

Your opinion is idiotic - very few CEOs are crooks. Punish the ones who are instead of treating everyone like a criminal. Your tactics are thuggish statism.

 

[kyzr]

Why is it any of your business what the shareholders of companies are willing to pay their executives?

If you are a shareholder - vote. If not, then boycott the companies if they offend you.

It's my country they are ruining, therefore it is my business.

Then stop bailing out the bad actors and punishing the honest ones.

When the government requires loans to unqualified borrowers, who default and throw the financial system into a crisis, then its incumbent on the government to LOAN money to the distressed banks, who then pay the LOANs back with interest. The only bailouts were GM, AIG, and possibly Fannie & Freddie. If the big banks were not saved the losses would be written off by investors and the only result would have been bigger deficits and more people unemployed. Saving the banks was a very smart thing.

 

[boedicca]

You are claiming that government was a big part of the problem to begin with - and you think more government interference via regulating compensation is the answer?

Go figure.

 

[kyzr]

This is the part you don't get. The shareholders have zero say what the CEO gets paid, tell me you believe that votes get counted?. The Board rubber-stamps what the CEO wants, and so does the compensation committee. IMHO the government needs to set compensation caps. If the CEOs don't like it they can work elsewhere. Look at Ken Lay and the other recent CEO crooks...I rest my case.

That is patently false. The shareholder can sell the stock if he doesn't like how the company is run. That's the most effect vote their is. They also elect boards of directors - and vote on various measures.
At the end of the day, it is a voluntary relationship.
Your opinion is idiotic - very few CEOs are crooks. Punish the ones who are instead of treating everyone like a criminal. Your tactics are thuggish statism.

1. Up until the day Enron, Lehman, Wamu, Tyco, Adelphia, Imclone and some of the other companies that were mis-managed by CEOs went bankrupt, the CEOs were all saying that everything is fine and its just a rough patch. People lost all of their pensions and investments. So your idiotic claim that the suckers voluntarily "invested" and got scammed so what?? Is moronic.
Defend these, and this is just the tip of the iceberg
Top 7 Convicted CEO's and the Harsh Penalties They Face | Marvquin, LLC

2. There are inadequate checks and balances on CEO powers. Managed compensation is a good start.

3. Thuggish is when CEOs move factories overseas, or bank their multi-million compensation winnings in Swiss bank accounts. Or lose billions in derivatives or other stupid financial gimmicks instead of creating jobs and taking care of their workers.

4. More government regulation is needed to protect investors from CEO crooks. Its a solution not a problem.

 

[boedicca]

1. Up until the day Enron, Lehman, Wamu, Tyco, Adelphia, Imclone and some of the other companies that were mis-managed by CEOs went bankrupt, the CEOs were all saying that everything is fine and its just a rough patch. People lost all of their pensions and investments. So your idiotic claim that the suckers voluntarily "invested" and got scammed so what?? Is moronic.
Defend these, and this is just the tip of the iceberg
Top 7 Convicted CEO's and the Harsh Penalties They Face | Marvquin, LLC

2. There are inadequate checks and balances on CEO powers. Managed compensation is a good start.

3. Thuggish is when CEOs move factories overseas, or bank their multi-million compensation winnings in Swiss bank accounts. Or lose billions in derivatives or other stupid financial gimmicks instead of creating jobs and taking care of their workers.

4. More government regulation is needed to protect investors from CEO crooks. Its a solution not a problem.

People who commit crimes (i.e. fraud) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We had government regulation in place already; more of the same isn't going to keep dishonest people from doing dishonest things. They have always existed in every society.

Of course, it's much easier to punish the honest ones instead. Which really is what most government regulation does.

 

[kyzr]

People who commit crimes (i.e. fraud) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We had government regulation in place already; more of the same isn't going to keep dishonest people from doing dishonest things. They have always existed in every society.

Of course, it's much easier to punish the honest ones instead. Which really is what most government regulation does.

I agree to some extent. The SEC was being "captured" by Wall Street. Bernie Madoff wasn't quite crooked enough to be the new SEC head. So the government is basically a collection of crooks, but crooks that need to get re-elected periodically, unlike CEOs.

You don't seem to get the fact that a $500,000 salary a year plus performance bonuses is a very good deal. Its not punishment. Japan and other smart countries have pay caps.

There is no way to justify a $400,000,000 bonus to a CEO. No way. That is criminal. Legalized larceny.

 

[boedicca]

It's more dangerous for society at large to have particular individuals engaged in the private sector targeted for government control of their compensation than it is for these people to be what "some" think is overpaid.

Why limit it to CEOs? There are musicians, movie stars, and athletes who make far more than these CEOs.

At the end of the day, Envy is a bad basis for public policy.

 

[kyzr]

It's more dangerous for society at large to have particular individuals engaged in the private sector targeted for government control of their compensation than it is for these people to be what "some" think is overpaid.

Why limit it to CEOs? There are musicians, movie stars, and athletes who make far more than these CEOs. At the end of the day, Envy is a bad basis for public policy.

You aren't getting the "privately held" versus "public" companies. Private companies can do whatever the OWNERS want. No question. They own the company Here is a list of privately held companies
America's Largest Private Companies - Forbes.com

Public companies need to have CEOs pay competitive but not excessive. There are many talented people who can run a business successfully. No one deserves a $400,000,000 bonus. Musicians, movie stars, and athletes earn their pay by being a private entity. They do not sell stock and then pay themselves outrageous amounts.

Its not government control, but gov't regulation. Overdue regulation. Its not envy, but investor protection.

 

[boedicca]

Public Companies are in the Private Sector - government setting pay for anyone is a slippery slope.

It's rather hypocritical to think that entertainers, who have far less responsibility for their impact upon the lives of others, should be freer to earn money than those who run companies.

 

[kyzr]

Public Companies are in the Private Sector - government setting pay for anyone is a slippery slope. It's rather hypocritical to think that entertainers, who have far less responsibility for their impact upon the lives of others, should be freer to earn money than those who run companies.

You simply don't get the fact that every job is important, and that CEOs even though they have slightly more responsibility, the CFO, accountants, doctors, and whoever else works for them have similar responsibilities. The CEOs don't deserve 500x what the others make. They are employees like the rest, employed ultimately by the investors. If the CEOs don't like the salary caps, they should leave and start their own private company.