Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[2ND COMING]

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

[tu_holmes]

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".

[Dos Equis]

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.    

[Dos Equis]

I call a duck a duck... "duck".

So?

[2ND COMING]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Slapper]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Slapper]

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?

[Straw Man]

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

[Slapper]

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?

[Hugo Chavez]

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

[Straw Man]

Are you talking to me?

no - my post just happened to follow yours but wasn't a "response"

[Soul Crusher]

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.

 

 

[Slapper]

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?

[Soul Crusher]

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.     

[Cap]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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!
 

[Slapper]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[Slapper]

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.

[Straw Man]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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.