Executive pay

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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. Add in Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan with their taking from the lending window to short others 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. 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.

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'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.

I should STFU because I am calling you out on your strawman? Sounds like a serious case of little-man syndrome.

That is all.

Oh, and as usual :owned:

No. As usual, you simply argued against a strawman that you built. Utter stupidity.
 
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.

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. :dunno:
 
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.
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.


I can understand the 1million + salaries for executives. These are the best and brightest of corporate talents. They have large responsibilities and much is required of them.

I don't get why they receive such huge bonuses and stock options. Do these people increase the value of the corporations that much? What can they do that deserves 10s of millions of dollars?? Can they speak 7 languages? Factor large numbers in their head? Walk through walls?

Could someone explain this to me?
__________________
 
Last edited:
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/20..._recipients_like_citigroup_merrill_lynch.html

Nine giant banks whose risky behavior crippled the American economy shelled out $33 billion in bonuses last year even as taxpayers kept them alive with a $175 billion bailout, a new report released Thursday found.
Three firms slathered their executives with bonuses that outstripped their net profits, while three others doled out huge payouts even as they chalked up astronomical losses, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo disclosed.
Blasting what he called Wall Street's "heads I win, tails you lose" culture, Cuomo said that Citigroup brass shared a $5.3 billion bonus pool in 2008 - despite posting a $28 billion loss and devouring a $45 billion rescue package.
"There is no clear rhyme or reason to the way banks compensate and reward their employees," he said.
"When the banks did well, their employees were paid well. When the banks did poorly, their employees were paid well. And when the banks did very poorly, they were bailed out by taxpayers - and their employees were still paid well."
How well? Despite the economic meltdown, the nine big banks that were the first recipients of billions of rescue cash from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) forked over bonus bonanzas of $1 million or more to 4,793 employees last year, Cuomo found.
Luckier still were the 873 executives who grabbed $2 million or more and the 836 who pulled down $3 million or more.
The withering report caught the attention of the White House: "President Obama believes the American people don't begrudge people making money, as long as we're not incentivizing wild risk-taking that somebody else picks up the tab for," said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Expect new hearings on pay practices in the wake of the report, congressional leaders vowed.
"Compensation practices of TARP recipients have a track record of yielding short-term profits - and long-term catastrophes," said Rep. Ed Towns (D-Brooklyn), who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Of the nine banks whose excesses were highlighted, seven are headquartered in New York. Among the report's findings:
  • Citigroup - which is now 35% owned by the U.S. taxpayer - showered bonuses of $5 million or more on 44 employees in 2008 and $1 million or more on 738.
  • Merrill Lynch - which vaporized $27 billion in wealth and gorged on $10 billion in TARP funds - paid out $3.6 billion in bonuses. It handed $5 million or more to 53 staffers and $1 million-plus to 696.
  • JPMorgan Chase - which glommed a $25 billion bailout - boasted 1,626 workers who got $1 million or more in bonus pay, leading its rivals in payouts. Its bonus pool hit $8.7 billion - dwarfing its profits of $5.6 billion.
"The scary thing is we're about to see the cycle repeat itself - and it will lead to near insolvency at another firm too big to fail," said John Coffee, a Columbia law professor.
"High-risk, high return trading - where managers share in the upside, but not in the downside - has already returned to Goldman Sachs, and other banks will say they have to do the same thing so they can compete with Goldman."
dfeiden@nydailynews.com


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/07/30/2009-07-30_ny_ag_andrew_cuomo_details_how_much_tarp_recipients_like_citigroup_merrill_lynch.html#ixzz0Un7MdxSu
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.


You are arguing that exec pay is always good.

Nope. Nice strawman.

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

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.

and towards family friendly business like Disney. I didn't say anything about Disney sounds like you are OT buddy.

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? :dunno:


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.

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".


"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.

That is a lot of useless whining right there. I hoe you got that out of your system.

For the record please show me where in the following that bankers and financial execs are EXCLUDED from the discussion.

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.

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.

Great. Now are there more "Steve Jobs" out there or execs that received bailouts?
 
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.

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?
 
It is what the companies are willing to pay them. What other explanation do you need? :dunno:

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.
 
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.

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.


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.

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.
 
D3d2K.jpg
 
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?
Nowhere does the OP ask about the percentage of Financial execs. I went after the group I felt was being addressed as the majority of the population is angry about banker pay not executives across the board (Although some on the left try and make it ALL execs). The OP asked about exorbitant executive pay. I addressed that. You and I apparently agree. That's great.

I think there are PLENTY of executives that are well paid and deserve it. I don't think the government should intervene. So what are you arguing with me about? Why go after me in the first place if you don't disagree. I never said all execs are overpaid. I made a tongue in cheek reference in my first post and that's it. I also went on to clarify it was tongue in cheek.

I for one see families every day that have been destroyed by the economic collapse. I'm absolutely livid about it and I blame the financial industry (not all of them but the crooks like Goldman Sachs in particular) I apologize if my rage boiled over on you as I assume you are not in that group.

Am I right in assuming you think there is a huge problem with exec payment on firms that have been bailed out? I by the way don't like what happened with GM one bit. Not the governments job to step in at all. GMAC (financial wing of GM) destroyed that company by getting suckered in by the likes of Goldman.

I'm terribly sad, and terribly angry that this country's economy has been sacked by the thieves in some of these financial firms. Some firms like CIT I actually respect as they lend to real businesses and aren't just speculative ponzi types like Goldman. The ones who own the FED (BofA etc.) have stolen our money once with hard to understand mortgages, and then again with bailouts and finally a third time with future inflation that they are helping to foster even now.

I think we are in agreement. I certainly hope so.

I do NOT think all executives are overpaid or underpaid. They all vary individually so it is silly to talk about them broadly, because there is a vast difference between a company that makes nuclear warheads and one that makes solar panels. Silly to compare them. Better to focus in on things you want to back up (Disney) for the positive, or things you have a problem with (the former investment banks ALL of which took money from TARP, TALF or the overnight lending window so I CAN speak about the lot of them).
 
Nowhere does the OP ask about the percentage of Financial execs. I went after the group I felt was being addressed as the majority of the population is angry about banker pay not executives across the board (Although some on the left try and make it ALL execs). The OP asked about exorbitant executive pay. I addressed that. You and I apparently agree. That's great.

I think there are PLENTY of executives that are well paid and deserve it. I don't think the government should intervene. So what are you arguing with me about? Why go after me in the first place if you don't disagree. I never said all execs are overpaid. I made a tongue in cheek reference in my first post and that's it. I also went on to clarify it was tongue in cheek.

I for one see families every day that have been destroyed by the economic collapse. I'm absolutely livid about it and I blame the financial industry (not all of them but the crooks like Goldman Sachs in particular) I apologize if my rage boiled over on you as I assume you are not in that group.

Am I right in assuming you think there is a huge problem with exec payment on firms that have been bailed out? I by the way don't like what happened with GM one bit. Not the governments job to step in at all. GMAC (financial wing of GM) destroyed that company by getting suckered in by the likes of Goldman.

I'm terribly sad, and terribly angry that this country's economy has been sacked by the thieves in some of these financial firms. Some firms like CIT I actually respect as they lend to real businesses and aren't just speculative ponzi types like Goldman. The ones who own the FED (BofA etc.) have stolen our money once with hard to understand mortgages, and then again with bailouts and finally a third time with future inflation that they are helping to foster even now.

I think we are in agreement. I certainly hope so.

I do NOT think all executives are overpaid or underpaid. They all vary individually so it is silly to talk about them broadly, because there is a vast difference between a company that makes nuclear warheads and one that makes solar panels. Silly to compare them. Better to focus in on things you want to back up (Disney) for the positive, or things you have a problem with (the former investment banks ALL of which took money from TARP, TALF or the overnight lending window so I CAN speak about the lot of them).

Fair enough.

Your previous posts came off like this:

OP: Are NBA players overpaid?

Your Response: Yes. Eddie Curry makes more than he is worth. See, I can post articles showing that he makes a lot of money and doesn't produce.

My posts were simply to challenge whether the example you were using was a relatively large portion of the population or not.
 
Fair enough.

Your previous posts came off like this:

OP: Are NBA players overpaid?

Your Response: Yes. Eddie Curry makes more than he is worth. See, I can post articles showing that he makes a lot of money and doesn't produce.

My posts were simply to challenge whether the example you were using was a relatively large portion of the population or not.
I work with folks who have had their lives destroyed by the financial meltdown. When you see hopeless looks on childrens faces, grown men crying, women trying to maintain their dignity and young people who look shell shocked it gets to you after awhile. I'm a big believer in Adam Smith's capitalism, the free market and small business that grow to become big corporations. I'm strongly against loose monetary policy, predatory lending, fractional reserve banking and the de-industrialization of America.

I think you and I probably agree on more then you think. The big difference I think is that I am exposed to the have nots so often that it has become a ball of rage in me. Perhaps you think it's the invisible hand or market forces that have caused this collapse. I firmly believe it is the Federal Reserve and other central banks along with their bank shareholders (only banks can own FED stock) who massively overleveraged both themselves and consumers with confusing or outright fraudulent loans. When their positions started to crumble, rather then embrace the natural rythym of the market they ran screaming for a bailout. Since they own the FED they of course granted their own bailouts with taxpayer money along with the help of their cronies in Congress.

Many congressmen and women of both parties aided and abetted this massive transfer of wealth. Yes both parties were all too eager to help this process along: from the slashing of interest rates after the dotcom bubble, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, to the bailouts. When the dust settles China is going to own this country and the parasites who caused this mess (Goldman Sachs executives and Congress people of both parties) will just up and move somewhere else. Their accounts are offshore and they hold no loyalty to America. The whole thing is simultaneously depressing and enraging. Pardon the misplaced anger.
 
FWIW, Bill Gates' salary as CEO of Microsoft barely topped $1M after years of earning less. All the while he was the richest guy on the planet and could literally buy anything made by Man (like his own space shuttle).

The stock is where the wealth is.

I opposed the bailouts and certainly the govt. owning any bit of any company. But since that's been done, I have not a single problem with the govt. telling the companies that received bailout money what their pay structure can be.
 
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.

Did you boycott the Blazers when Raef LaFrentz was making eight figures?:dunno:

The bottom line is that unless the Federal Government has a controlling interest in a corporation, and can therefore have a majority of the board seats, they have zero right to dictate salaries. They can choose not to make the investment in the company, but if they do, they have to follow the rules like everyone else. Just because it's an entity supposedly representing the public doesn't give it any special rights.
 
Did you boycott the Blazers when Raef LaFrentz was making eight figures?:dunno:

The bottom line is that unless the Federal Government has a controlling interest in a corporation, and can therefore have a majority of the board seats, they have zero right to dictate salaries. They can choose not to make the investment in the company, but if they do, they have to follow the rules like everyone else. Just because it's an entity supposedly representing the public doesn't give it any special rights.

Boycott the Blazers!!! I'd rather bang my penis with a hammer!

I agree with your second point. In fact I said as much on the previous page:
bluefrog said:
It is upsetting to see them giving out such large bonuses but the government should have stipulated that these were prohibited before giving them the bail out.

It's unfair to make up these rules as we go along.
 
Crime pays, which is why capitalism is failing so horribly in this country.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top