Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: headhuntersix on March 21, 2009, 04:17:03 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.
The Caucus
The latest on President Obama, the new administration and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.
More Politics News
The outlines of the plan are expected to be unveiled this week in preparation for President Obama’s first foreign summit meeting in early April.
Increasing oversight of executive pay has been under consideration for some time, but the decision was made in recent days as public fury over bonuses has spilled into the regulatory effort.
The officials said that the administration was still debating the details of its plan, including how broadly it should be applied and how far it could range beyond simple reporting requirements. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation.
One proposal could impose greater requirements on the boards of companies to tie executive compensation more closely to corporate performance and to take other steps to assure that outsize bonuses are not paid before meeting financial goals.
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last month, as part of the stimulus package, Congress barred top executives at large banks getting rescue money from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay.
Beyond the pay rules, officials said the regulatory plan is expected to call for a broad new role for the Federal Reserve to oversee large companies, including major hedge funds, whose problems could pose risks to the entire financial system.
It will propose that many kinds of derivatives and other exotic financial instruments that contributed to the crisis be traded on exchanges or through clearinghouses so they are more transparent and can be more tightly regulated. And to protect consumers, it will call for federal standards for mortgage lenders beyond what the Federal Reserve adopted last year, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the mortgage rules.
The plan is being put together in advance of the meeting of the Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations in London, which is expected to be dominated by the global financial crisis and discussions about better oversight of large financial companies whose problems could threaten to undermine international markets.
An important part of the plan still under debate is how to regulate the shadow banking system that Wall Street firms use to package and trade mortgage-backed securities, the so-called toxic assets held by many banks and blamed for the credit crisis.
Officials said the plan would also call for increasing the levels of capital that financial institutions need to hold to absorb possible losses. But in a sign of the fragility of the economic system officials said the administration would emphasize that those heightened standards should not be imposed now because they could discourage more lending. Rather, they would be put in place after the economy began to rebound.
“The argument some are making is that they don’t want to be stepping on the gas pedal and the brake at the same time,” said Morris Goldstein, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a former top official at the International Monetary Fund.
Administration officials are also debating how tightly to supervise hedge funds. A broad consensus has emerged among regulators and administration officials that hedge funds must be registered and more closely monitored, probably by the Securities and Exchange Commission. But officials have not decided how much the funds will have to disclose about their investments and trading practices.
A central aspect of the plan, which has already been announced by the administration, would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large, troubled companies that are not now regulated by Washington, like insurance companies and hedge funds.
That proposal would, for instance, make it easier for the government to cancel bonus contracts like those given to executives at the American International Group, which have stoked a political furor. Under the proposal, the Treasury secretary would have the authority to seize and wind down a struggling institution after consulting with the president and upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the Federal Reserve board.
Long before he became Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner had sought broader authority for the government to resolve problems at financial institutions that were not under the supervision of bank regulators.
The government now has the power to take over only the banking unit that controls federally insured deposits of large troubled institutions, not the parent company, a limit that could pose problems if large financial conglomerates like Citigroup or Bank of America continued to spiral downward.
In unveiling the regulatory plan this week, President Obama would signal to Europe that he intended to crack down on the risk-taking and other free-wheeling practices by the financial industry that resulted in the global economic meltdown.
France and Germany especially have suggested that the better response is not more government spending but tighter regulation.
The Obama administration has urged European nations to do more to restart their economies through financial stimulus. Mr. Obama is hoping that by showing a serious commitment to tighter regulation he can more easily persuade other countries to increase government spending and stimulate demand by consumers and businesses that would help pull the global economy out of a serious decline.
-
Well we told u guys...we bitched, we posted, and u laughed. Now this asshole is going to tell u how much to make. U CT guys love to connect dots, well this is just one massive regulation...how about guns...freedom of movement....where does this end. U guys hated Bush for all the same reasons;...except he wasn't fucking his own people, just those who were trying to kill us.
-
Republicans just look like whiney bitches now... You don't like the bailouts... Even when the people you vote for also vote for them... Then you blame it all on Obama.
When the government steps in and says they'll tax the bonuses that you don't think the execs should have gotten from our taxpayer money in the first place... You whine some more.
Then, you start this whining shit... Oversight is not a bad thing... The lack of oversight on all levels is a big part of why we've got such an economic meltdown as is.
All of the die hard repubs are starting to look like whiney bitches.
-
Yeah...Uncle Sam should regulate pay. Those guys had those bonuses written into their contracts, thats not up to Obama. if they suked they should have been fired. Barry doesn't get to decide that.
-
Yeah...Uncle Sam should regulate pay. Those guys had those bonuses written into their contracts, thats not up to Obama. if they suked they should have been fired. Barry doesn't get to decide that.
So you were ok with the Tax payers (You and me) giving them their bonuses?
That's the point I'm making... You guys are just whining about everything, and you're doing whatever you can to make the Obama administration look bad even when he's really doing the right thing.
Ridiculous.
Oversight of pay does not necessarily mean control of it... I believe it's much more related to an executive who ends up taking money from other people by running a company into the ground and ruining their lives but making out like a bandit.
All the while leaving many people financially destitute.
-
Thats not my call...that money should never have been given in the first place, but that aside. Obama knew full well they would be getting those bonuses because it was in the 1100 page disaster. I believe that nobody read the damm thing and it was so rushed through anyway.
-
Thats not my call...that money should never have been given in the first place, but that aside. Obama knew full well they would be getting those bonuses because it was in the 1100 page disaster. I believe that nobody read the damm thing and it was so rushed through anyway.
Didn't this bonus money come from the first plan? You know... the one that Bush and all of the other Republicans agreed on as well?
-
U would have to check, I don;t know. I didn't like that one either. Its the outrage from the Dems that gets me, they knew, Geithner knew. Plus thats not the particular point of the thread. If u work hard u deserve the bonus...if not, or the company tanks, thats it.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/us/politics/22regulate.html
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money. Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies, which already report about some executive pay practices to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last month, as part of the stimulus package, Congress barred top executives at large banks getting rescue money from receiving bonuses exceeding one-third of their annual pay.
And there you have it. >:(
-
U would have to check, I don;t know. I didn't like that one either. Its the outrage from the Dems that gets me, they knew, Geithner knew. Plus thats not the particular point of the thread. If u work hard u deserve the bonus...if not, or the company tanks, thats it.
That's my point... I understand you've probably never gotten a bonus being a lifelong military person, but bonuses are generally contracted based on performance of the company.
The problem is that at the executive level, it doesn't work that way... For instance... My bonuses are directly related to company performance. If the company doesn't do well, then I don't get one... I have no alternative if I want the job.
However, executives get to make their own rules... That's why a CEO gets to run his company into the ground and still collect bonuses. They also get ridiculous amounts of severance if the board finds them unfit to lead... Here's a few million for you to just go away they say.
I think that kind of thing should be regulated... Sorry if you don't agree. It's criminal that these guys can ruin peoples lives and nothing bad happens.
-
And there you have it. >:(
Financial Institutions... You mean banks... So that would probably be a good thing when it comes to the current mess we're in now.
-
Well we told u guys...we bitched, we posted, and u laughed. Now this asshole is going to tell u how much to make. U CT guys love to connect dots, well this is just one massive regulation...how about guns...freedom of movement....where does this end. U guys hated Bush for all the same reasons;...except he wasn't fucking his own people, just those who were trying to kill us.
True. As soon as Obama talked about capping salary several people sounded the alarm. This guy is out of control.
-
Financial Institutions... You mean banks... So that would probably be a good thing when it comes to the current mess we're in now.
It also said publicly traded companies. That's just nuts.
-
It also said publicly traded companies. That's just nuts.
I don't see where regulation is a bad thing... Sorry... you're just making a point about him saying he's going to regulate some things.
Lack of regulation is a big part of why we're in the shit we're in now... So no... excuse me if I don't think it's that nuts at all.
-
That's my point... I understand you've probably never gotten a bonus being a lifelong military person, but bonuses are generally contracted based on performance of the company.
The problem is that at the executive level, it doesn't work that way... For instance... My bonuses are directly related to company performance. If the company doesn't do well, then I don't get one... I have no alternative if I want the job.
However, executives get to make their own rules... That's why a CEO gets to run his company into the ground and still collect bonuses. They also get ridiculous amounts of severance if the board finds them unfit to lead... Here's a few million for you to just go away they say.
I think that kind of thing should be regulated... Sorry if you don't agree. It's criminal that these guys can ruin peoples lives and nothing bad happens.
That's not how all companies operate. Bonuses can be based on company performance, individual performance, or both. Some are paid if the employee/officer reaches certain milestones, regardless of the overall company performance. Definitely possible for an employee/officer to receive a bonus based on excellent individual performance, even if the overall company performance is not good. That's part of the way a company attracts and keeps good people.
And the military does offer enlistment, retention, bonuses, which can be pretty substantial.
-
I don't see where regulation is a bad thing... Sorry... you're just making a point about him saying he's going to regulate some things.
Lack of regulation is a big part of why we're in the shit we're in now... So no... excuse me if I don't think it's that nuts at all.
It's not just regulating "some things." It's the federal government regulating the salaries of private companies. That's not just nuts, it's outrageous. Obama is acting precisely like someone who didn't grow up in the private sector. If he keeps this up I'm going to blow a gasket like 3333. :)
-
That's not how all companies operate. Bonuses can be based on company performance, individual performance, or both. Some are paid if the employee/officer reaches certain milestones, regardless of the overall company performance. Definitely possible for an employee/officer to receive a bonus based on excellent individual performance, even if the overall company performance is not good. That's part of the way a company attracts and keeps good people.
And the military does offer enlistment, retention, bonuses, which can be pretty substantial.
So you think it's ok for CEOs to get paid huge bonuses when the company is crumbling around them... That's what you call retaining a good person?
Riiight.
Whatever you say Beach... I think you're wrong, but that's not a big shock. We don't agree on much.
-
So you think it's ok for CEOs to get paid huge bonuses when the company is crumbling around them... That's what you call retaining a good person?
Riiight.
Whatever you say Beach... I think you're wrong, but that's not a big shock. We don't agree on much.
I think it's okay for a private company to do whatever the heck it wants when it comes to salaries and bonuses. If a CEO is paid a "huge bonus" and he or she earned it then no I don't care. Even if he or she didn't earn it, I still don't care, because it's a private company.
No, we don't agree on much. So what. But I'm right about how bonuses are paid by some companies. You said they're only paid if the company is profitable, successful, etc. That's not true. That may be how it works in your company, but all companies don't operate that way. Depends on the company.
Here is an example of a failing company that is trying to pay bonuses to its employees, because the employees earned them and had nothing to do with the company failing:
Bankrupt Hawaiian Telcom plans to pay $6M in worker bonuses
Company seeks OK from bankruptcy court to pay $6M to workers
By Rick Daysog
Advertiser Staff Writer
Hawaiian Telcom Inc., which filed for bankruptcy protection in December, is asking a federal judge to approve bonuses totaling about $6 million to its 1,400 employees.
But Gov. Linda Lingle called the bonuses "unconscionable," and said her administration will oppose them in court.
"Hawaiian Telcom is the critical communications backbone for our state, and its action to pay millions in bonuses puts the company in a precarious position that jeopardizes its long-term viability, as well as threatens Hawai'i's economic recovery," she said.
In a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court yesterday, the state's largest phone company said its workers are eligible for the bonuses because the company achieved performance targets for revenue, cash flow and other measures last year.
"Our employees are key to our long-term success and our ability to emerge from Chapter 11, so I, and the rest of the board members, have determined that it is critical that we stand behind their accomplishments and honor our commitment to them," said Walter Dods, Hawaiian Telcom's chairman and the former head of First Hawaiian Bank.
Dods defended the payments, saying they don't involve a "dime of taxpayer money." He said the company is simply trying to fulfill obligations it made to employees even before it filed for bankruptcy.
"There's nothing unconscionable about it," Dods said.
"What is unconscionable is a person who makes a political issue when somebody does the right thing and abides by their contract," he said.
The company said CEO Eric Yeaman agreed to waive $609,000 in bonus payments that he's entitled to this year.
Lingle said, "The fact that company president and CEO Eric Yeaman himself turned down a bonus shows that he clearly recognized bonuses were wrong and counterproductive to Hawaiian Telcom's efforts to restructure its finances and operations. He could have and should have put an immediate stop to this outrageous action."
Six of the company's senior managers also have agreed to defer half of any awards they receive until after Hawaiian Telcom emerges from bankruptcy protection.
The senior managers as a group are entitled to about $420,000 in bonuses, or an average of about $70,000 each.
Nearly $3.6 million of the bonus money is intended for non- senior management employees.
Hawaiian Telcom said its unionized employees qualify for about $2 million in incentive pay under the terms of their collective bargaining agreement signed in October.
"We commend the company management for working on behalf of the union employees and living up to 100 percent of the terms required by the collective bargaining agreement," said Scot Long, business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1357.
Founded in 1883, Hawaiian Telcom has about 1,400 workers and annual operating revenues of about $500 million.
The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization last year due to its heavy debt load and heated competition from wireless and other competitors.
Hawaiian Telcom's financial woes came after Washington, D.C.-based The Carlyle Group purchased the local carrier in 2005 for more than $1.6 billion.
Hawaiian Telcom said it initially wanted to pay $8 million in bonuses but reduced the figure after discussions with the company's bank lenders.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Lloyd King has scheduled an April 16 hearing on the issue.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090320/NEWS01/903200378
-
It's not just regulating "some things." It's the federal government regulating the salaries of private companies. That's not just nuts, it's outrageous. Obama is acting precisely like someone who didn't grow up in the private sector. If he keeps this up I'm going to blow a gasket like 3333. :)
company's that issue stock are NOT private, sorry. If youre against the gov overlooking salaries of ceo's who drive their company to the ground at the expense of the share holder and eventually the taxpayer you are part of the problem.
the issue is water under the bridge but please dont let the big bad govenment cliche cloud your logic on this one
-
company's that issue stock are NOT private, sorry. If youre against the gov overlooking salaries of ceo's who drive their company to the ground at the expense of the share holder and eventually the taxpayer you are part of the problem.
the issue is water under the bridge but please dont let the big bad govenment cliche cloud your logic on this one
Exactly... Beach always seems to miss the fact that these corporations are public... That's why they're corporations.
The public at large believes these guys need more regulation, but I guess some people just don't care what the public at large wants when it comes to NON-private businesses.
-
company's that issue stock are NOT private, sorry. If youre against the gov overlooking salaries of ceo's who drive their company to the ground at the expense of the share holder and eventually the taxpayer you are part of the problem.
the issue is water under the bridge but please dont let the big bad govenment cliche cloud your logic on this one
What?? Dude. I don't want to confuse you with the facts, but a publicly traded company is owned by its shareholders, and unless the majority of shareholders is the government, then it's still a private company (i.e., not a government entity). It still has its own board of directors (which is not the government) and officers (also not the government). It's the shareholders to lesser extent and the board, primarily, along with the officers, that determine salaries and bonuses, not the government. The government doesn't have the right to regulate the salaries of a publicly traded company.
-
What?? Dude. I don't want to confuse you with the facts, but a publicly traded company is owned by its shareholders, and unless the majority of shareholders is the government, then it's still a private company (i.e., not a government entity). It still has its own board of directors (which is not the government) and officers (also not the government). It's the shareholders to lesser extent and the board, primarily, along with the officers, that determine salaries and bonuses, not the government. The government doesn't have the right to regulate the salaries of a publicly traded company.
The shareholders ARE the people Beach. Just because I only have 1 or 2 shares doesn't mean that the money that gets destroyed because of stupidity by executives is any less important.
I'm the public and I am the shareholder and I think some more regulation is good... So I guess the government is doing my will.
-
The shareholders ARE the people Beach. Just because I only have 1 or 2 shares doesn't mean that the money that gets destroyed because of stupidity by executives is any less important.
I'm the public and I am the shareholder and I think some more regulation is good... So I guess the government is doing my will.
The shareholders are the owners of a publicly traded company. Not the government. If you are part owner of a publicly traded company and you're unhappy, then you should sell your shares or work with other shareholders to make changes. You don't run to the government and ask them to start overriding private contracts.
-
The shareholders are the owners of a publicly traded company. Not the government. If you are part owner of a publicly traded company and you're unhappy, then you should sell your shares or work with other shareholders to make changes. You don't run to the government and ask them to start overriding private contracts.
The problem is that at the level that CEOs and board members are... they don't give a crap about the rest of the shareholders.
Do you not remember Enron? Each and every one of those employees was a shareholder and in the end, they got fucked.
This is needed... You just like whining. You guys are all a bunch of whining bitches now.
What happened to the republicans who weren't pussies and believed in accountability?
-
What?? Dude. I don't want to confuse you with the facts, but a publicly traded company is owned by its shareholders, and unless the majority of shareholders is the government, then it's still a private company (i.e., not a government entity). It still has its own board of directors (which is not the government) and officers (also not the government). It's the shareholders to lesser extent and the board, primarily, along with the officers, that determine salaries and bonuses, not the government. The government doesn't have the right to regulate the salaries of a publicly traded company.
listen little buddy, when a company issues stock to be purchased and traded publically...THAT MAKES IT PUBLIC.
Why are you implying public=goverment owned?
-
The problem is that at the level that CEOs and board members are... they don't give a crap about the rest of the shareholders.
Do you not remember Enron? Each and every one of those employees was a shareholder and in the end, they got fucked.
This is needed... You just like whining. You guys are all a bunch of whining bitches now.
What happened to the republicans who weren't pussies and believed in accountability?
And I will continue to sound the alarm when I see the government reaching it's hand into the private sector. Very very dangerous precedent.
I'm not a Republican, so I can't answer your question.
-
by the way...obama and whoever is proposing this only has a right to go after salaries of company's in which the government has a stake in...unless they change the rules...sorta like what paulson and bush did. I know...waaaa waaaa
-
And I will continue to sound the alarm when I see the government reaching it's hand into the private sector. Very very dangerous precedent.
I'm not a Republican, so I can't answer your question.
I call a duck a duck... "duck".
-
listen little buddy, when a company issues stock to be purchased and traded publically...THAT MAKES IT PUBLIC.
Why are you implying public=goverment owned?
You don't know what you're talking about. A company can allow members of the "public" to purchase its stock without being a publicly traded company. In that respect, it's "public." You are the implying that a publicly traded company gives the government the right to regulate salaries and bonuses. I'm telling you that a "publicly traded company" is indistinguishable from a non-publicly traded company when it comes to government control of salaries and bonuses.
You are the one implying public = government owned. It isn't.
And yes there is a distinction between a "privately held corporation" and a "publicly held corporation." Different issue.
-
I call a duck a duck... "duck".
So?
-
You don't know what you're talking about. A company can allow members of the "public" to purchase its stock without being a publicly traded company. In that respect, it's "public." You are the implying that a publicly traded company gives the government the right to regulate salaries and bonuses. I'm telling you that a "publicly traded company" is indistinguishable from a non-publicly traded company when it comes to government control of salaries and bonuses.
You are the one implying public = government owned. It isn't.
And yes there is a distinction between a "privately held corporation" and a "publicly held corporation." Different issue.
listen buddy....i can assure you every company you see on cnbc has an ipo....that makes it public. I'm not gonna argue semantic....the company's that the dems will want to regulate salares for will most CERTAINLY be gov' owned and more than likely have an ipo...
when a company makes an ipo= thats jargan for publically owed
-
So you were ok with the Tax payers (You and me) giving them their bonuses?
That's the point I'm making... You guys are just whining about everything, and you're doing whatever you can to make the Obama administration look bad even when he's really doing the right thing.
Ridiculous.
Oversight of pay does not necessarily mean control of it... I believe it's much more related to an executive who ends up taking money from other people by running a company into the ground and ruining their lives but making out like a bandit.
All the while leaving many people financially destitute.
Obama/Geitner/Dodd wrote the language in the bill that allowed these bonuses in the firsdt place in the senate version of the bill that no one read.
-
The shareholders ARE the people Beach. Just because I only have 1 or 2 shares doesn't mean that the money that gets destroyed because of stupidity by executives is any less important.
I'm the public and I am the shareholder and I think some more regulation is good... So I guess the government is doing my will.
Please go take a basic business course. You have no clue about corporations and how they work.
-
Please go take a basic business course. You have no clue about corporations and how they work.
And YOU do?
If I were given a dollar for every time you and HH6 mention the words "you have no clue" I'd be a millionaire.
-
And YOU do?
If I were given a dollar for every time you and HH6 mention the words "you have no clue" I'd be a millionaire.
Just read the factually incorrect posts on this thread from some posters. Business Corporations are private entities and only public when they are on the exchange. That has nothing to do with the public at large having any say over compensation levels.
The shareholders and directors are the ones who are supposed to have oversight of that.
-
Just read the factually incorrect posts on this thread from some posters. Business Corporations are private entities and only public when they are on the exchange. That has nothing to do with the public at large having any say over compensation levels.
The shareholders and directors are the ones who are supposed to have oversight of that.
Would you then agree that worker compensation should follow the same rates of increase as those of the upper echelons (officers, directors, etc.) in the company?
-
I don't see any problem. Most likely whatever they try to do will get watered down, neutered, etc..
Worst case, the companies get to retain more $$$ which would make them more profitable and they can pass the extra profits on to the shareholders in the form of dividends and presumably the executives will own a large # of shares in their own companies and still do quite good. If any company finds the new environment unsatisfactory they can always relocate to Nigeria or Dubai.
Click on the link to the chart and then expand to full screen and ask yourself if that looks like a sustainable and stable system of compensation
-
I don't see any problem. Most likely whatever they try to do will get watered down, neutered, etc..
Worst case, the companies get to retain more $$$ which would make them more profitable and they can pass the extra profits on to the shareholders in the form of dividends and presumably the executives will own a large # of shares in their own companies and still do quite good. If any company finds the new environment unsatisfactory they can always relocate to Nigeria or Dubai.
Click on the link to the chart and then expand to full screen and ask yourself if that looks like a sustainable and stable system of compensation
Are you talking to me?
-
I don't see any problem. Most likely whatever they try to do will get watered down, neutered, etc..
Worst case, the companies get to retain more $$$ which would make them more profitable and they can pass the extra profits on to the shareholders in the form of dividends and presumably the executives will own a large # of shares in their own companies and still do quite good. If any company finds the new environment unsatisfactory they can always relocate to Nigeria or Dubai.
Click on the link to the chart and then expand to full screen and ask yourself if that looks like a sustainable and stable system of compensation
holy crap lol... nothing wrong with that chart :D
-
Are you talking to me?
no - my post just happened to follow yours but wasn't a "response"
-
Would you then agree that worker compensation should follow the same rates of increase as those of the upper echelons (officers, directors, etc.) in the company?
The sad reality is that the greedy pigs and robber barons at the top should do this without being required to do so by law just as a sense of decency.
-
The sad reality is that the greedy pigs and robber barons at the top should do this without being required to do so by law just as a sense of decency.
Hence the reason why business MUST be regulated.
333386 I presume you understand many people are anti-business in many ways because business has seldom embraced social responsibility. In every economy, in every country, in any historical period business has been regulated to some degree.
I cannot mention ONE, JUST ONE, social advance proposed by Big Business. Heck, up until the mid XX century they were perfectly comtempt with children being part of the workforce, forcing people to work for 13 hours per day every friggin single day of the week, etc. It all came to an end when workers began to unionize and politicians were FORCED to pass worker-friendly laws and BB got scared shitless of what was going on.
Now, you tell me, do you think those people will ever accept a salary range that resembles that of the 1950s?
-
Hence the reason why business MUST be regulated.
333386 I presume you understand many people are anti-business in many ways because business has seldom embraced social responsibility. In every economy, in every country, in any historical period business has been regulated to some degree.
I cannot mention ONE, JUST ONE, social advance proposed by Big Business. Heck, up until the mid XX century they were perfectly comtempt with children being part of the workforce, forcing people to work for 13 hours per day every friggin single day of the week, etc. It all came to an end when workers began to unionize and politicians were FORCED to pass worker-friendly laws and BB got scared shitless of what was going on.
Now, you tell me, do you think those people will ever accept a salary range that resembles that of the 1950s?
For one thing, these companies are so large that they never have to look at their employees. I think that fact alone makes it such that these people have no sense of shame or guilt in what they are doing.
I have a small business and have to look at the people I hire and deal with them day to day. When there is extra money, I always try to give out what I can and pick up some of their expenzses. I cant do it all the time mind you, but I think when these companies get so large, there is a disconnect between the executives and the people that work for the company in the lower levels.
I dont like government controlling salaries of private business though.
It just seems to me that these companies as a matter of decency should share more of the earnings with the workers.
However, if a person is not happy what they make, they can always go somewhere else or start their own show like I did. Believe me, there are many many times I wished I had a regular job, but I like the freedom of not bering controlled by some corporate tool.
You may not realize this, I went into my own business because I despise corporate types and their ilk.
-
So you were ok with the Tax payers (You and me) giving them their bonuses?
That's the point I'm making... You guys are just whining about everything, and you're doing whatever you can to make the Obama administration look bad even when he's really doing the right thing.
Ridiculous.
Oversight of pay does not necessarily mean control of it... I believe it's much more related to an executive who ends up taking money from other people by running a company into the ground and ruining their lives but making out like a bandit.
All the while leaving many people financially destitute.
Isn't AIG based in CT? Isn't Chris Dodd a Representative from CT? Didn't Chris Dodd help write the clause that ensured AIG got their bonuses? Isn't Chris Dodd a Dem? Isn't Chris Dodd now backtracking? Isn't Chris Dodd acting like a little whiney bitch on Capitol Hill now that people found out what he, Obama and Geithner knew?
The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and people aren't buying it.
We should have just let AIG file for bankruptcy and then the contracts would be renegotiated.
-
Isn't AIG based in CT? Isn't Chris Dodd a Representative from CT? Didn't Chris Dodd help write the clause that ensured AIG got their bonuses? Isn't Chris Dodd a Dem? Isn't Chris Dodd now backtracking? Isn't Chris Dodd acting like a little whiney bitch on Capitol Hill now that people found out what he, Obama and Geithner knew?
The Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot and people aren't buying it.
We should have just let AIG file for bankruptcy and then the contracts would be renegotiated.
Dodd/Geithner and the Congress/Senate/Obama are to blame for this mess. They wrote it into the stimulus bill specifically protecting these bonuses and never read the bill before they signed it. They jammed the bill through without even reading the damn thing!
-
For one thing, these companies are so large that they never have to look at their employees. I think that fact alone makes it such that these people have no sense of shame or guilt in what they are doing.
I have a small business and have to look at the people I hire and deal with them day to day. When there is extra money, I always try to give out what I can and pick up some of their expenzses. I cant do it all the time mind you, but I think when these companies get so large, there is a disconnect between the executives and the people that work for the company in the lower levels.
I dont like government controlling salaries of private business though.
It just seems to me that these companies as a matter of decency should share more of the earnings with the workers.[...]
Right, and when and where in history has this happened?
I'd really like an answer to that.
-
Right, and when and where in history has this happened?
I'd really like an answer to that.
Smaller companies do it all the time. However, the huge public companies are beholden to the shareholders and public ratings agencies, not the employees.
-
Smaller companies do it all the time. However, the huge public companies are beholden to the shareholders and public ratings agencies, not the employees.
Is that fair? Is it fair that huge public companies give HUGE bonuses to 1-5% of the employees and very little to the remaining 99-95%?
FYI, I worked for a small company for many years and got minimum wage for some years. Smaller companies do not pay it "all the time". That's a fallacy, or personal opinion at best.
-
Smaller companies do it all the time. However, the huge public companies are beholden to the shareholders and public ratings agencies, not the employees.
wouldn't the shareholders be better off if more of the profits were distributed as dividends rather than huge salaries/bonuses to a few execs? The stock and the company as a whole would be better off and the exec's who presumably would own large blocks of the stock (though tiny in relation to the total amount of shares) would still do just fine.
If the execs are truly worth the large salaries and bonuses they are being paid then they should start their own private companies and pay themselves whatever they want
-
wouldn't the shareholders be better off if more of the profits were distributed as dividends rather than huge salaries/bonuses to a few execs? The stock and the company as a whole would be better off and the exec's who presumably would own large blocks of the stock (though tiny in relation to the total amount of shares) would still do just fine.
If the execs are truly worth the large salaries and bonuses they are being paid then they should start their own private companies and pay themselves whatever they want
I agree and in a lot of these companies the board of directors are largely ceremonial positions.
-
I agree and in a lot of these companies the board of directors are largely ceremonial positions.
more like a gang of cronies who all sit on each others boards and award each other big chunks of profit that should be going to the shareholders.
-
more like a gang of cronies who all sit on each others boards and award each other big chunks of profit that should be going to the shareholders.
I said in another thread, I quit my job early on in a law firm and went on my own because I hate corporate america and all the pc fake phony garbage.
Being a well-paid slave to a corporate master is not my cup of tea.
Remember that movie - "The Firm"????
-
Any company's survival in our capitalist economy is subject to the requisite of making a profit. No profit = bankruptcy. Furthermore, there's only two ways to increase profits: increase production or increase prices. The later is not a desireable option because it increases inflation, which has a negative effect on the economy as a whole. So we're left with increasing production. If this holds true, doesn't it make sense, under our capitalist system, to reward those who produce the most, not necessarily the ones that are ranked highest in the corporate ladder?