The only people who think pay should be limited are people who have never made any money. Government cheese crowd lol.
So you don't believe in the freedom to contract? Who gave you the right to say that I can't structure my business with any compensation arrangement I want. If I go public, and you don't like it, then don't buy any shares. Just go buy BRK or some other company with low exec comp and see how well that does you. It is interesting to me when free market constitutionalists (like AAA) turn fascist on their pet issues. It really reveals the dark side of human nature.
Judging by what the 1st string has given us I'd say it's time play the 2nd string. Let's remember that all this economic chaos was orchestrated by the brainiacs with all that "talent".
I thought it was in early 80's but yeah, he claimed he was unaware of it lol. Democrats are the lowest of the low.
Agreed. For those worried about an exodus of talent, why not simply give bonuses - very, very good bonuses - based on performance? True talent will thus be rewarded.
I hear ya, but not EVERY CEO is a bad egg. There's plenty of bright, capable executives with decent ethics that are running good companies. Besides, Barney is one of the main culprits behind this whole mess, but that's for another thread. If any communists show up here, somebody please give them a good spanking. I've gotta go.
Please read my original post. Barney says $500,000, including bonuses. Impossible, hey, with the stuff thats going on, I'd say anythings possible with this administration.
I agree with you that Barney has his head up his ass (along with gerbils, most likely). Again, reward good performance with good bonuses and true talent will stick around.
It wouldn't be my first choice, for sure. The simple fact is we have experienced over the past 15 years or so an obvious breakdown in corporate governance. It has given rise to a new royal class, CEOs. They set their own compensation, rubberstamped by a board of cronies. Institutional investors are silenced by conflicts of interest, a go-along to get along mentality, or their own self interest. This is not just my opinion. Respected compensation experts like Graef Crystal have voiced similar opinions. I would love for someone to actually argue that Nardelli was worth $200 mill to the shareholders of HD. That the former head of Pfizer was worth what we walked away with. How about the former or current heads of AIG, GM, any bank, GE, etc, I could list practically any public company. The fact is other countries by and large do not compensate executives as we do here. If they think they can go abroad and do better, more power to them. Judging from the results, I doubt we will be any worse off. Perhaps instead our companies should be looking for bright Indian and Chinese executives to take the reins if our domestic execs feel unappreciated. All this rationalization about the "market" and "freedom of contract" misses the point. The system is badly broken. All you have to do is go back and compare the ratios of exec comp with worker pay over history. Compare it with other countries. I don't agree with a lot of the political rhetoric about inequality and fairness,e tc but in this case they have a point. Defending this system tarnished conservative arguments onother issues. There is simply no way to defend letting some corporate weasel/politician who managed to scheme his way into the corner office take home a substantial percentage of the company's profits just because he's CEO. There is simply no way one guy can possibly add enough value to be worth hundreds of millions. Of course, the corker is when things go south. Then they have a million excuses, the market, the economy, the weather, etc. Basically the drill is, when things are good, the star CEO deserves huge comp and when they are bad, heneeds to have his options repriced. That is BS and I give even an asshole like Barney Frank credit for saying so.