Could you provide some data that shows executives deserve these huge compensations? ("deserve" meaning they increased the value of the company significantly after taking the position)
I don't have to. The fact that companies / board-of-directors have offered and paid these compensation packages is proof. Are you working under the assumption that CEOs just get to choose their compensation and how they are compensated whenever they like, without any other approval necessary? If so, then I see where your confusion is coming from. Further, why do you care if the CEO of Microsoft makes $50 zillion per week? If you don't agree with it, don't buy their products.
I specifically said no government intervention. That's just more proof you look for nits to pick and ignore the argument like a good little right wing media soldier. If you aren't aware of the utter havoc wrecked by the financialization of this country then you are the one who needs to bone up on current events. Do you know what flash trading is? How about Dark Pool trading? OTC derivatives? Do you have any understanding about financials and the way the US and UK have been destroyed by financialization? Which countries boomed the hardest during the bubble years? Now which countries have crashed the hardest? The country you and I love is being annihilated by these financial organizations which are selling us out to Chinese taskmasters who pay slave wages to their people. You talk about building a straw man when your arguments are "paper tigers" all rhetoric and zero substance. You don't even make a point you just nit pick others. I used the "straw man" to illustrate that you are sticking up for people who have gutted this once proud nation. I'm pro-business and pro-capitalism. I'm strongly against Keynesianism and Central Banks controlling a nations currency. If anything I'm probably VASTLY more conservative then you when it comes to monetary policy Executive pay isn't a problem in many industries. I submit that the financial industry has destroyed this country and it's a slowmotion implosion. I also believe in performance based pay which should include actual wealth created not numbers created out of whole cloth (like financials earnings this quarter), but real actual wealth created by real goods and real jobs IN THIS COUNTRY. It kills me how Republicans defend these globalizing financial corporations/banks that have done more to build up our enemies then anyone ever. China would still be a wasteland if our leadership hadn't sold us out to CEO's and stockholders that outsourced our real economy while creating short term profits. I hope you live a LONG, LONG life to see just how horribly wrong you are about so many, MANY things. P.S. I hope your Chinese is up to snuff.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. I know these things are negotiated. I know this. I just want to know what they do that warrants the kind of money they get. Your argument seems to be: they do because they do
Damn dude. You talk (type) in circles. It is hard to even parse the gibberish for an actual point to the rambling. Here, I'll provide some structure for you: 1) The OP was that executives don't seem to deserve their huge compensations. 1b) There was no specific mention in the OP of executives in the financial industry. 2) You've turned it into long diatribes about the financial industry. 3) Is the number of executives running firms that received bailouts is a large number compared to the total number of executives in the country receiving "$10million" in compensation? 4a) If (3) is "no", then you are off on a random tangent. 4b) If (3) is "yes" then there is something to be discussed. 5) Unless you can provide data with respect to (3), then you are just hijacking the thread to go on a rambling whine-fest.
No, my argument is that it isn't my place to decide what they deserve (unless they are receiving a lot of my money through tax dollars or my stock purchases). I really don't care. If I have a problem with the CEO or his compensation, I can simply not buy their product. The board of directors and other executives should be deciding if others deserve their compensation.
Being a major victim of this recession, this thread just pisses me off. I tried to give Idog76 some rep, because I loved his sarcasm, but I gave him some the other day and it won't let me give him more.
Point noted. It's tough to know who to boycott though. I could think "No way is Robert Iger worth $51,229,341! That's outrageous! I'm never seeing another Disney movie". But in actuality Mr. Iger may be able read minds in which case he totally deserves that money. The public doesn't exactly have the whole picture.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009...ncial-meltdown-wall-st-pay-party-goes-on.html Wells Fargo, Merril Lynch, AIG and Citigroup all took bailouts or arranged buy outs and all paid out Billions in bonuses even when they took millions or billions in losses. Add in Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan with their taking from the lending window to short other industries/financials after getting the uptick rule removed and you have the MAJORITY of major american investment banks. Infact, you might have every last one of them. Most of these executives have multi-year contracts that are quite analogous to Eddie Curry in that they still get paid even when they don't perform. Look I don't have the time or inclination to do YOUR research for you. Your spelling and grammar are excellent. I hope your Chinese is just as good. Continue to defend these guys and your "Engrish won't help you much round eye." I'm sorry that you don't pay any attention. I'm more sorry that you and bintim can't switch places. These financial executives (they ARE executives that are grossly overpaid so I'm on topic bud) have destroyed our economy and shorted the snot out of many healthy businesses. Now that they are holding CIT hostage the real businesses of middle America are unable to roll over day to day business loans even when they have a profitable business. So please STFU and do some research. That is all. Oh, and as usual
You are still only addressing the financial industry. The OP wasn't targeted at the financial industry. You continue to build strawmen. The lack of logic is mind boggling. Please show me where I argued that executives in the financial industry didn't take bonuses after receiving bailouts. Otherwise, like I said, you've just built a strawman. Again, please show how the number of financial execs compares to the total number of execs in the country. I should STFU because I am calling you out on your strawman? Sounds like a serious case of little-man syndrome. No. As usual, you simply argued against a strawman that you built. Utter stupidity.
In the case of Disney, why do you have a problem with their CEO or President receiving huge bonuses? Disney didn't get a bailout right? Do they engage in sweat-labor that you are opposed to? I don't understand being upset about somebody making more money than myself if it hasn't come illegally, through evil, or by a complete lack of morals.
So do you have an argument? OP said Executives being overpaid. Rather then talk about all executives which is as ludicrous as talking about ALL men or ALL women or ALL anything I narrowed the focus to execs I think are overpaid. You ignore that to set up YOUR strawman argument that I'm ranting or whatever you want to say. You are arguing that exec pay is always good. I'm saying it's not. It might be that you have no argument at all that wouldn't surprise me in the least. I addressed what the OP is saying and you are taking it in the direction you like away from the dangers of obvious greed like Goldman Sachs and towards family friendly business like Disney. I didn't say anything about Disney sounds like you are OT buddy. Your lack of big picture understanding is disturbing. Financial execs are what 90% of people are complaining about funneling the topic to anywhere else is a useful rhetorical tool that hides the REAL issue and you know it. "Straw man" "Tin foil hat" "bad spelling" "bad grammar" look over there! Look over here. Ignore the raging inferno folks nothing to see here! Let's not talk about how some fires are bad lets focus on cooking fires. Surely you aren't against cooking fires right? So therefore lets ignore this arsonist who made fire insurance money burning down his apartment complex. We're all happy now. You don't even build straw men because you don't even try to argue at all you just tear apart what others have built...much like the guys you are defending. For the record please show me where in the following that bankers and financial execs are EXCLUDED from the discussion. Oh that's right your argument about me being OT has been...A STRAW MAN! You assume I'm for government intervention and you are WAY off base. I'm all for shareholder actions to limit this kind of insanity. I have NEVER argued that a productive executive shouldn't be reimbursed for creating actual goods. Hence my comment about Steve Jobs above. Of course you ignored that so you could build your own straw man in your insulting diatribe about needing to parse out what I was saying (bundle that straw!) and ignoring what I actually said to control the conversation.
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/20..._recipients_like_citigroup_merrill_lynch.html Very few people complained about executive pay until the bailouts and the continued executive largesse. I could care less what people said prior to the bailouts as that has nothing to do with why people are mad now. It's the bankers bonuses after gutting the economy that everyone is angry about not whether Phil Knight built some business from the ground up. I love "Acres of Diamonds" stories when they're legit. These bailout thieves are the furthest thing from it.
Those are all subjective terms. I, too, don't have a problem with a top executive receiving a large paycheck, per se. And I think it's evident that some CEO's earn their compensation honestly. The rub is that we see it almost continually that many top executives seem to be crossing the line on the subjective ways you mention, or in companies that have been 'bailed out' or otherwise. I'd like to see workers/shareholders have a civil right to be able to challange what some of these people make. ABM had a good job with a Fortune 500 company that was tops in their field and a model business in many ways. The CEO sold the company to a rival that was smaller, near bankrupt, and had a terrible management practices routine. The smaller company, literally, raped the better one for all the assets it could draw out, changed the rules so the 90+% from ABM's company received less compensation for being laid off as well as worked it so they could not draw unemployment benefits for an extended period of time. In fact he, like others, were laid off during the holiday season as a final insult. The reason, the one reason the company was sold and then systematically destroyed was that the top executives had in their contracts that if they could ever sell the company they received millions in additional bonuses. So while over 1,000 faithful employees got kicked to the curb, the top executives pocketed many millions of dollars and didn't care one iota for what they had done to people. My thinking is that those poor damn workers need some legal redress- but they don't. And that's just one of many reasons why I look sideways sometimes on these executive contracts. I think they need to adhere to some set of regulations for their compensation that prevents stepping on the common workers as well as ensuring it is fully equitable money they're getting.
No. I simply asked what percentage of highly paid executives that received bailouts fall into this part of the argument. If the relative number is small, then it is a small portion of this thread and doesn't deserve your long posts. If the relative number is large, then you have every right to focus on the financial industry, and I will acknowledge that and discuss it. Nope. Nice strawman. Nope. Just trying to get a feel for how many of these executives are getting huge compensations while receiving bailouts. I don't know why you have such a problem with that. Perhaps you haven't yet figured out how to use the interwebz. I was responding to, and quoted another poster who first brought up Disney. I don't know how else to help you other than suggesting a course on computers and the internet? It is absolutely comical that you accuse me for a "lack of big picture understanding" when I am the one suggesting that we first discuss the relative number of these executives that received bailouts to determine if it is a decent sample size of the overall population of execs. You are the one wanting to dive right into a specific sector and start making extrapolations. THAT is the definition of "lack of big picture understanding". That is a lot of useless whining right there. I hoe you got that out of your system. They aren't necessarily excluded. I'm asking you for proof that the relative number of financial execs that received bailouts is a significant number. Otherwise, let's discuss the large portion of the executives. Great. Now are there more "Steve Jobs" out there or execs that received bailouts?
Great. We get it. You are against huge bonuses for executives who's companies received bailouts. How many times do you want to keep posting editorials from people that agree with you? Nobody on this thread has disagreed with you. Now, to address the OP, is the number of these execs large compared to the number of execs that received huge bonuses with no bailouts?
Then I ask this. At what point when these executives are receiving this over the top pay while their companies are going tits up, and this in turn is causing damages to investors and the economy, does the government not step in and end this bullshit. It ends up being little more than a corporate ran Ponzi scheme with a few executives laughing out the door while consumers around the country are hurt. Lastly, I call bullshit that anybody does so much per day that they should be paid that much. I have found in general (and I have worked for some rather large companies of note) is that the more you earn, the less you do.
There seem to be lots of ways to not get hurt by companies where you (or an investor) don't have confidence in the executives of the company. Nobody made you invest. I will acknowledge that if the company is receiving tax dollars for bailouts, it is a different situation. And I call BS on the idea that the value somebody is measured in how "much" they do in a day. If you work with the attitude that quantity of work is more important than quality and intelligence of work, then it isn't surprising you would have a problem with executive compensation.
