Bush takes aim at CEO salaries

mammasan

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

I have to say I am pleasantly suprised by the President's stance on this and in agreement with him.

norm

mammasan wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070131/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

I have to say I am pleasantly surprised by the President's stance on this and in agreement with him.

True, but maybe he could of thought about this 5 or 6 years ago. I'm very cynical because I think this is a desperate attempt to boost his approval ratings and his legacy.

mammasan

cutback wrote:

True, but maybe he could of thought about this 5 or 6 years ago. I'm very cynical because I think this is a desperate attempt to boost his approval ratings and his legacy.

You know if it produces possive results I really don't care what his motive is.

Pacomc79

It'd be really cool if he would also take on congressional and executive salaries as well.

I mean you know imagine forcing elected officials to be judged on performance?

As if there were some nobility in government or something. They set thier own salaries for gosh sakes. Imagine putting congressional salary up for a vote by the people?


I still think it comes down to individuals like Bill Ford who turn ridiculous bonuses back in. If the idiots at Delta weren't taking huge bonuses and failing to steer the company in the right direction they wouldn't be at the brink of disaster at the moment.

Accountability would be nice but good luck getting that out of most people in America at any level of income.

It's humorous to me that Bush could even get the words out of his mouth.

norm

mammasan wrote:

You know if it produces possive results I really don't care what his motive is.

I know and agree but the self serving aspect pisses me off. I mean the last 2 years of your presidency you decide to start solving problems? Gimmie a break. :rolleyes:

farfromglorified

Thanks for your input George. Please go back to the force machine.

mammasan

cutback wrote:

I know and agree but the self serving aspect pisses me off. I mean the last 2 years of your presidency you decide to start solving problems? Gimmie a break. :rolleyes:

Definetly something that should have been addressed but I guess better late than never.

jeffbr

What a dumbass.

Uncle Leo

cutback wrote:

True, but maybe he could of thought about this 5 or 6 years ago. I'm very cynical because I think this is a desperate attempt to boost his approval ratings and his legacy.

Pretty much everything he does/tries to do for the next two years is going to be about legacy. He knows his is not looking great now and I think he's obsessed with it.

he still stands

Ok I might get bashed for this, but here it goes...

CEOs are TYPICALLY paid what they deserve, not always though. Think about it this way... as a CEO they are paid to make big strategic decisions, and have the power to bring and 10s of millions of dollars through their work. So if they achieve results and increase income by, say $20M, aren't they deserving of a significant chunk of that? Just like professional sports stars, if they bring in a significant amount of dollars, they are entitled to a chunk of it. And by the way, these guys have worked 20 to 40 years to get where they are and usually deserve to be paid for being THE guy who turns around the corporation.

Just my 2 cents. -- and keep in mind I am anti-corporation. But CEO salaries are a very minor part of the problem.

mammasan

he still stands wrote:

Ok I might get bashed for this, but here it goes...

CEOs are TYPICALLY paid what they deserve, not always though. Think about it this way... as a CEO they are paid to make big strategic decisions, and have the power to bring and 10s of millions of dollars through their work. So if they achieve results and increase income by, say $20M, aren't they deserving of a significant chunk of that? Just like professional sports stars, if they bring in a significant amount of dollars, they are entitled to a chunk of it. And by the way, these guys have worked 20 to 40 years to get where they are and usually deserve to be paid for being THE guy who turns around the corporation.

Just my 2 cents. -- and keep in mind I am anti-corporation. But CEO salaries are a very minor part of the problem.

I think the President is referring more to the packages CEO are given once they leave/retire. Some of these packages are worth more money than most of us will se in a lifetime and in some cases the preformance of these CEO's has been less than average. When anyone of us performs poorly at work and is let go we don't get any compensation so why should a CEO get $20 million dollars for being let go for the same reason.

blackredyellow

Uncle Leo wrote:

Pretty much everything he does/tries to do for the next two years is going to be about legacy. He knows his is not looking great now and I think he's obsessed with it.

Also most of this legacy shit that he is talking about will not happen. He has no political clout left, so he can go on TV and promise anything he wants that will make him look good, and then it won't go anywhere.

Pacomc79

mammasan wrote:

I think the President is referring more to the packages CEO are given once they leave/retire. Some of these packages are worth more money than most of us will se in a lifetime and in some cases the preformance of these CEO's has been less than average. When anyone of us performs poorly at work and is let go we don't get any compensation so why should a CEO get $20 million dollars for being let go for the same reason.

Exactly, see Home Depot and Delta for the glowing examples of what not to do.

Nardelli got 210 million to go away from Home Depot? He was horrid, he freaking wrecked the unwreckable and they gave him 210 million to go away. Unbelievable.

and then there's Jeff Bowden and that guy that Alabama just fired and payed off to go away.

jeffbr

mammasan wrote:

I think the President is referring more to the packages CEO are given once they leave/retire. Some of these packages are worth more money than most of us will se in a lifetime and in some cases the preformance of these CEO's has been less than average. When anyone of us performs poorly at work and is let go we don't get any compensation so why should a CEO get $20 million dollars for being let go for the same reason.

Why is this the President's concern? Why is this any business of the governments? This is something between the employee, the employer and any shareholders.

norm

jeffbr wrote:

Why is this the President's concern? Why is this any business of the governments? This is something between the employee, the employer and any shareholders.

Good point. That's why I think this is more for show than actual policy.

mammasan

jeffbr wrote:

Why is this the President's concern? Why is this any business of the governments? This is something between the employee, the employer and any shareholders.

Well I think it's a concern because it is a problem. Look at the two examples pacomc79 pointed out. The President himself stated that the government would not intervene but believes that their should be a revue process, within the company not the government, to determine wether a CEO deserves these types of lucrative packages.

On a side note I can't believe I'm actually defending President Bush.

jeffbr

mammasan wrote:

Well I think it's a concern because it is a problem. Look at the two examples pacomc79 pointed out. The President himself stated that the government would not intervene but believes that their should be a revue process, within the company not the government, to determine wether a CEO deserves these types of lucrative packages.

On a side note I can't believe I'm actually defending President Bush.

Is he calling for manditory compliance, or government "oversight" of this review process? Or is this simply a suggestion to be taken or not? If this is just one guy's suggestion, then two thumbs up. I agree with the sentiment. But if this is the president talking about how he's going to make things better, then he should mind his own business (which isn't going too well at this point). The article said something about a "sharp warning" which is never a good thing coming from someone with a lot of firepower, and then went on to say Barney Frank is going to introduce legislation regarding shareholder approval of compensation packages. It smells like gov't intervention to me.

mammasan

jeffbr wrote:

Is he calling for manditory compliance, or government "oversight" of this review process? Or is this simply a suggestion to be taken or not? If this is just one guy's suggestion, then two thumbs up. I agree with the sentiment. But if this is the president talking about how he's going to make things better, then he should mind his own business (which isn't going too well at this point). The article said something about a "sharp warning" which is never a good thing coming from someone with a lot of firepower, and then went on to say Barney Frank is going to introduce legislation regarding shareholder approval of compensation packages. It smells like gov't intervention to me.

Bush's idea was just a suggestion that shareholders should have more say in CEO packages. He clearly stated that government should have no involvment what so ever. I didn't read what Franks was introducing.

soulsinging

jeffbr wrote:

Is he calling for manditory compliance, or government "oversight" of this review process? Or is this simply a suggestion to be taken or not? If this is just one guy's suggestion, then two thumbs up. I agree with the sentiment. But if this is the president talking about how he's going to make things better, then he should mind his own business (which isn't going too well at this point). The article said something about a "sharp warning" which is never a good thing coming from someone with a lot of firepower, and then went on to say Barney Frank is going to introduce legislation regarding shareholder approval of compensation packages. It smells like gov't intervention to me.

how is the SHAREHOLDERS approving compensation packages government intervention?

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Thanks for your input George. Please go back to the force machine.

what's a force machine?

ThumbingMyWay32

cutback wrote:

True, but maybe he could of thought about this 5 or 6 years ago. I'm very cynical because I think this is a desperate attempt to boost his approval ratings and his legacy.

* - see Clinton presidency