Now, I know that people hate the compensation that top executives get now days, but this is utterly ridiculous:  news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_executive_pay

Apparently the cap for those executives is going to be $200k.  Now, I know that sounds like a lot, but does the administration actually want these companies to be able to get actual "top" executives to work there?  Because with a 200k cap to salaries, they won't get anyone worth a damned.

Originally posted by daeandor

Now, I know that people hate the compensation that top executives get now days, but this is utterly ridiculous:  news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_executive_pay

 

Apparently the cap for those executives is going to be $200k.  Now, I know that sounds like a lot, but does the administration actually want these companies to be able to get actual "top" executives to work there?  Because with a 200k cap to salaries, they won't get anyone worth a damned.

I totally support this.  It's easily the best decision Obama's made since taking office. 

The only problem is those bailouts never should have happened in the first place.

I wish i made 200k..

but yes i think it was a good decision personally.

Nothing absurd about it. Who've you ever gone into debt lending money to and been cool with their spending excessively without first paying you back?

Repay the bailout and then they're exempt from any bailout terms.

Government doesn't know how to price anything, ever.  They don't belong owning companies and industries and they definately don't have the authority to run said businesses.  Executive pay, worker pay....it's all a social contract between company and worker, government has no business interferring.

The question isn't if you think they are making too much, the real question is should the government be owning businesses and running them?  I say no!

I cannot believe several of you support the Fed capping executive pay like that.  200k is pennies for exec pay and those companies will never be able to recruit anyone worth their salt for executive positions as long as the Fed hovers over executive benefits.  Sure, cap their base salary at 200k, but ALL salary and incentive?  That's just idiotic.  What incentive is there for a top executive to make their company succeed when there is no pay incentive?  The whole thought is naive.  Who is going to buy stock in a company with no vision or leadership and that is essentially run by the Fed?  Who is going to want to take an executive job which your decisions will be micro-managed by unelected Federal bureaucrats (Feinberg - a guy with no experience as an executive running a multi-billion dollar company and doesn't even have a background in anything but law and arbitration)?

The fact that the Fed is so blatantly meddling in corporate affairs is mind boggling.  Bear in mind that I am referring to the situation as a whole with that statement (TARP funds and meddling in the affairs of a public company).  And yes, I apply this to administrations that did it prior to Obama's.

Originally posted by smokemonsc

Government doesn't know how to price anything, ever.  They don't belong owning companies and industries and they definately don't have the authority to run said businesses.  Executive pay, worker pay....it's all a social contract between company and worker, government has no business interferring.

The question isn't if you think they are making too much, the real question is should the government be owning businesses and running them?  I say no!

The 'real' question is a separate matter. Of course private business shouldn't be dependent upon government bailouts. Now that we're in this mess though, we'll treat it how we should and not how we would have if the bailouts never happened.

So, I just re-read the article and realized that the TARP funded companies don't have to fall into this new guideline, only the bailout firms.  Not that it really makes a difference, I just realized I made an error in my last post.

But back to my argument:  I'm not saying that these companies should not pay the money back.  The big example in the article is AIG.  AIG borrowed $180 billion and they are getting worked over for promising $198 million in bonuses.  Do these people understand math?  198 million is about 0.11 percent of what they owe.  That's 0.0011.

So what you are saying is that if someone borrowed $1000 from you, you'd be upset if they went and spent $1.10 on a single coke throughout an entire year  (it's been over a year since they got it) without paying that money back to you first?

They'll make their money still.  Flipping stocks and such.   Salaries are just the tip of the ice berg in payments.

And look on the bright side.  Being capped at 200k puts them in the middle class range.

No worries about hitting that 250k penalty mark.

Originally posted by daeandor

those companies will never be able to recruit anyone worth their salt for executive positions as long as the Fed hovers over executive benefits.

Yes they will. This, if you do not realize, is simply another form of affirmative action. This is their way of getting rid of qualified employees who deserve the high pay and placing unqualified individuals in these positions at what they see as a "high" salary.

But without the moron who buys a $30k stove, who will support US small business.  When you cap salaries to middle-class, then you are effectively giving money to China for many goods.  The US's current manufacturing arm is in high cost luxury goods.  When it comes to more common items they are all nearly done in China or other countries and imported.

Also the Salary cap doesn't do anything.  The Clinton Administration already made the cap $1 million, and they got around it through bonuses.  $1 million salary, and $2 million in bonuses.

Originally posted by Chieftan

I totally support this.  It's easily the best decision Obama's made since taking office. 

The only problem is those bailouts never should have happened in the first place.

If that is the best, then it sure does not say much for his other decisions.

It sucks to be them but it does take care of some of the criticisms towards government bailouts.

 Corporations and private companies can pay how much they want  to tthe top executives and it doesnt bother me. However, If I was a shareholder or an employee of a company that paid top executives hundreds of millions in compensation and att the same time the company was going downhill, it would bother me.

Fortunately I'm unemployed, poor and have no stocks, so I don't have to worry about it.

There are people who are  many times more brilliant than a lot of CEO's earning less than 100k, so maybe they should hire some of those guys.

Originally posted by //\\//\\oo

There are people who are  many times more brilliant than a lot of CEO's earning less than 100k, so maybe they should hire some of those guys.

 

I totally agree.  However, those same people generally are not driven to do what billion dollar corporate CEO's and President's do.  To get "good" people with global strategic vision to run a company, you need to be willing to pay out strategic incentives.  Capped $200k salary and benefits is not strategic billion dollar company pay.

Originally posted by Pyrich

They'll make their money still.  Flipping stocks and such.   Salaries are just the tip of the ice berg in payments.

The fed is saying that they are capping ALL pay AND incentives at $200k.  Stock options and other incentives are included in that.

Originally posted by Cleffy

But without the moron who buys a $30k stove, who will support US small business.  When you cap salaries to middle-class, then you are effectively giving money to China for many goods.  The US's current manufacturing arm is in high cost luxury goods.  When it comes to more common items they are all nearly done in China or other countries and imported.

Also the Salary cap doesn't do anything.  The Clinton Administration already made the cap $1 million, and they got around it through bonuses.  $1 million salary, and $2 million in bonuses.

Allegedly they are trying to close that loophole for companies associated with the bailout funds.