Obama administration to issue executive pay limits

A step in the right direction. Welfare is welfare, corporate or otherwise.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bailout_executive_pay


Abner

 

Abner,

maybe its relative but:

""If the taxpayers are helping you, then you've got certain responsibilities to not be living high on the hog," President Barack Obama said Tuesday."


I believe I could live pretty well on 500k. I think these companies will work around the cap. Should be fun to watch because they will then blame Obama when these execs draw deep rewards once the companies right themselves. I also think it is very gracious of him to allow them to make more than he is. My personal opinion is that these guys should be capped at the Senior Executive Level- $160,000 or so. Some of the SEC guys make in the $200,000s but when a company is using federal dollars why shouldn't they follow federal pay scales for executives?

 

I would say taxpayers dollars. I am hoping for more regulations.

 

The new rules will make it tough for these financial institutions to recruit or to keep the executive talent they so badly need to turn their companies around so that they can once again become profitable. As these rules loom on the horizon you can be assured that many of the top executives in these companies are looking to bail - and head to industries where the government isn't limiting their compensation.

 

Wait a minute, what talent? Paying millions of dollars for incompetent individuals to run companies to the ground and with the side effect of the destroying the economy, you call that talent. Sorry, but I disagree here. I am pretty sure, people with real talent(not greed) will surface and will do a good job.

 

Why would a potential candidate who may (or may not) have what it takes to turn a failing company around even consider working for a company with government-mandated compensation caps when that person can go to another company and maximize his or her potential?

The buzz phrase on the news right now is "corporate greed" but I don't hear any wailing or gnashing of teeth over paying movie stars, rappers, or sports stars many millions of dollars to entertain us.

There certainly are many bad characters in the corporate world who had a hand in the demise of their own companies and our current economic situation. However, I believe that our own government had an even greater hand in this debacle. This is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue either, as both parties are very much guilty.

 

I totally agree with you. If you are up-and-coming executive with a great track record, why would you ever decided to join a company that has government mandated compensation limits. This is just the next in a series of steps toward full-on socialism...

 

Well, hypothetically speaking, if they do hire real "executive talent," there can always be deferred compensation payable whenever this new executive talent "saves the company." But you would have to define what precise quantitative measures you're going to use to determine whether this new executive talent has "saved the company." And if this new executive talent runs the company into the ground, then he/she/it should not get a huge bonus for so doing.

 

How many movie stars, rap stars, and sports stars do you know who have bankrupted their studios, record labels, and teams with excessive salary demands and then gone hat in hand to the government to demand multi-billion dollar bailouts?

 

No, that is called social responsibility(you need to see the big picture and history has show that when there is not an economic balance everyone suffers, no exceptions). So, jobs will be limited and that will weed out the bad seeds. I expect more regulations from government not less with taxpayers money.

 

When the government can regulate the salaries of any private sector jobs, no matter how well-intentioned it may be, it is a giant leap toward a socialist society.

 

When private companies come to the government for a multi-billion dollar bail-out, no matter how well-intentioned it may be, it is a giant leap toward a socialist economy.

Lenders get to have a say in how their money will be spent if the loan is extended. And borrowers can either take it or leave it as they please.

 

When the government can regulate the salaries of any private sector jobs, no matter how well-intentioned it may be, it is a giant leap toward a socialist society.

Let me give you an example. Yesterday there was a headline written by a "journalist" with the AP about Wells Fargo. The journalist said that "bailed-out" Wells Fargo was throwing a junket in Vegas for executives. The article went on to state that Wells was a major part of the sub-prime lending meltdown.

There are so many problems with this article. First, Wells Fargo did not want the government’s money, but they were forced to take 25 billion or face sanctions by the FDIC. Wells Fargo also is known throughout the banking industry as one of the few that were NOT involved with sub prime lending and have been known as one of the most conservative lending banks for many years. Furthermore, the Vegas trip was not a junket for executives, rather it was an award recognition weekend for top producers in the mortgage department. Unfortunately, because of the sensationalism of the article and the response from several ill-informed congressmen, Wells Fargo has decided to cancel this function. It is amazing the power that the government now has over the private sector. Actually it is frightening. I am almost ready to give up and find myself a nice government job. since pretty soon almost all jobs are going to be de facto government jobs anyway.

I am disappointed that Wells Fargo did not take a stand on this since they are probably the most financially healthy bank in the entire country and they have every right to recognize their top employees with a trip to Vegas, but this is the dirty cycle that we are headed in when the government gets too involved in the private sector. If you think private CEOs are greedy and corrupt, just wait until those CEOs are government employees...

 

Does a bank that lends you money to buy a house second-guess you if you decide to take a vacation? Also, many banks did not request the bail-out money.

 

care to elaborate?

 

No, that is your view of things, when government gives money to a bunch of irresponsible without any concessions that what you call a disaster. Then is best just to let them burn to the ground and don't give them anything.

Subsequently, will be no organization to pay nothing, not even a dime,then they will regulate themselves correctly and finally get it. If they want taxpayers money(my money and yours), the government on behalf of the taxpayers should ask this failing business accountability, transparency, and guarantees.

 

are you asking me to elaborate on specific instances of corruption from government officials. That could take a while...

 

I actually agree with most of what you are saying. I do not think anyone should ever have been bailed out. Once the government takes stake in a company, they feel as if they have a right to scrutinize every decision that company makes. It creates a quasi-ownership of the company...

And again, many of the financial institutions that were "bailed-out" did not want the government's money...