Obama caps executive pay tied to bailout money

inmytree

good

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_ ... cutive_pay

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama imposed a $500,000 pay cap on some senior executives whose firms receive government financial rescue money, a dramatic intervention into corporate governance in the midst of financial crisis.

Standing with his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Obama said the United States doesn't disparage wealth nor does it begrudge those who succeed, but lavish bonuses for executives at companies seeking taxpayer dollars was unfair.

"What gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers," the president said in the White House foyer.

The cap on executive pay would not apply to banks in good financial shape that receive federal assistance.

soulsinging

I was just about to post this... about fucking time!

decides2dream

*applauds*
kudos obama!


you want a government bail out? well then, you have to abide some new rules. seriously, just about everything this man has done thus far in office is right on target.

kenny olav

Good! I wish there would be a $500K cap on all salaries, bailout or not. But so far, not everyone is down with my socialist schemes.

Lizard

LOVE IT!!! Wonder why that other guy didn't do this.

:roll:

stickfig13

decides2dream wrote:

*applauds*
kudos obama!


you want a government bail out? well then, you have to abide some new rules. seriously, just about everything this man has done thus far in office is right on target.

If you think that giving government money to failing companies is a good idea

JOEJOEJOE

They should have a government examiner approve all major expenditures at the troubled banks....treat them as if the are in bankruptcy status.

decides2dream

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

They should have a government examiner approve all major expenditures at the troubled banks....treat them as if the are in bankruptcy status.

absolutely!
accountability, such a novel concept.

VINNY GOOMBA

How about getting rid of fractional reserve banking so we don't get into this mess ever again?

Sludge Factory

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

How about getting rid of fractional reserve banking so we don't get into this mess ever again?

What a novel concept!

Commy

Kenny Olav wrote:

Good! I wish there would be a $500K cap on all salaries, bailout or not. But so far, not everyone is down with my socialist schemes.

I am. that's a great idea.

yoke

decides2dream wrote:

*applauds*
kudos obama!


you want a government bail out? well then, you have to abide some new rules. seriously, just about everything this man has done thus far in office is right on target.

except maybe appointing tax cheats to his staff :roll:

also, why we are at it.. Cut the Unions and benefits for GM and Chrysler. Lets get those contracts opened up so that these companies who asked for money can make some back and maybe pay off thier debt faster while they "retool" for the 21st century.

Cosmo

yoke wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

*applauds*
kudos obama!


you want a government bail out? well then, you have to abide some new rules. seriously, just about everything this man has done thus far in office is right on target.

except maybe appointing tax cheats to his staff :roll:

also, why we are at it.. Cut the Unions and benefits for GM and Chrysler. Lets get those contracts opened up so that these companies who asked for money can make some back and maybe pay off thier debt faster while they "retool" for the 21st century.

...
Sell G.M. and Chrysler to China. Their products already meet the 'Crappy Chinese Junk' standards. Let them be a burden on some other country for a change.

know1

I would have STRONGLY opposed this until they limited it to those crooks who received the bailout money from those other crooks (our government).

NoK

Kenny Olav wrote:

Good! I wish there would be a $500K cap on all salaries, bailout or not. But so far, not everyone is down with my socialist schemes.

Half a million seems awfully generous for someone who ran his company to the ground. I'm with you only make the cap at $250K and spread the wealth even more. I don't see why anyone can't live a very comfortable life with such an amount. With the money saved, along with cutting a lot of useless spending, you could probably afford giving each family a house and each individual free health care as a condition of citizenship. Heck if the Israelis do it using American money then I'm sure you guys are entitled to the same in your country considering its your money.

JaneNY

NoK wrote:

Kenny Olav wrote:

Good! I wish there would be a $500K cap on all salaries, bailout or not. But so far, not everyone is down with my socialist schemes.

Half a million seems awfully generous for someone who ran his company to the ground. I'm with you only make the cap at $250K and spread the wealth even more.

I agree 250K would be even better, but the good part here is I believe it is the first time there has been a cap at all. Even with this quite generous amount, it still sends an important message that the government is taking a watchful interest in how hard-working taxpayers' money is being used in the bailout, and that it expects results instead of executives using the money for their personal benefit.

kenny olav

NoK wrote:

Kenny Olav wrote:

Good! I wish there would be a $500K cap on all salaries, bailout or not. But so far, not everyone is down with my socialist schemes.

Half a million seems awfully generous for someone who ran his company to the ground. I'm with you only make the cap at $250K and spread the wealth even more. I don't see why anyone can't live a very comfortable life with such an amount. With the money saved, along with cutting a lot of useless spending, you could probably afford giving each family a house and each individual free health care as a condition of citizenship. Heck if the Israelis do it using American money then I'm sure you guys are entitled to the same in your country considering its your money.

I'd be OK with $250K. You're right, that's a very comfortable life. I suppose for those who are greedy, $500K wouldn't be enough anyway. The point is, we need more equitable pay. It just ain't right to have a multi-millionaires and billionaires when millions (or billions when you look at the whole world) of working people aren't getting paid when they deserve. I feel like what I'm saying here should be the equivalent of something obvious like 1+2=3 but in our world 1+2=0. No sense. The more we have people that are treated fairly, the more we will have people who are happy, and the happier we will all become as individuals. Why can't we do what is fair? We're only hurting ourselves. I don't think a day goes by that I don't think about this for a moment and get pissed off.

The President's salary happens to be $500K. Should anyone be paid more than the President? Does anyone have a more important job than that?

xavier mcdaniel

I'd have liked to see it be less like 200K or 250K, but just the fact this was signed into law is noteworthy. I'd imagine that 500K was done in order to get more tax revenue on all the levels from these people.

know1

Kenny Olav wrote:

NoK wrote:

Kenny Olav wrote:

Good! I wish there would be a $500K cap on all salaries, bailout or not. But so far, not everyone is down with my socialist schemes.

Half a million seems awfully generous for someone who ran his company to the ground. I'm with you only make the cap at $250K and spread the wealth even more. I don't see why anyone can't live a very comfortable life with such an amount. With the money saved, along with cutting a lot of useless spending, you could probably afford giving each family a house and each individual free health care as a condition of citizenship. Heck if the Israelis do it using American money then I'm sure you guys are entitled to the same in your country considering its your money.

I'd be OK with $250K. You're right, that's a very comfortable life. I suppose for those who are greedy, $500K wouldn't be enough anyway. The point is, we need more equitable pay. It just ain't right to have a multi-millionaires and billionaires when millions (or billions when you look at the whole world) of working people aren't getting paid when they deserve. I feel like what I'm saying here should be the equivalent of something obvious like 1+2=3 but in our world 1+2=0. No sense. The more we have people that are treated fairly, the more we will have people who are happy, and the happier we will all become as individuals. Why can't we do what is fair? We're only hurting ourselves. I don't think a day goes by that I don't think about this for a moment and get pissed off.

The President's salary happens to be $500K. Should anyone be paid more than the President? Does anyone have a more important job than that?

Most people in the world would be happy with $12K per year. What if we cap it to that?

soulsinging

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

I'd have liked to see it be less like 200K or 250K, but just the fact this was signed into law is noteworthy. I'd imagine that 500K was done in order to get more tax revenue on all the levels from these people.

I don't know about going that low. I'm all for eradicating wealth disparity, but knocking CEO's down to levels that my classmates will make out of law school seems a bit too far. If we're going to go that low, we need this to be a national thing, not just a string attached to bailout money. Otherwise, we're setting up those companies we're trying to bail out for failure.

xavier mcdaniel

soulsinging wrote:

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

I'd have liked to see it be less like 200K or 250K, but just the fact this was signed into law is noteworthy. I'd imagine that 500K was done in order to get more tax revenue on all the levels from these people.

I don't know about going that low. I'm all for eradicating wealth disparity, but knocking CEO's down to levels that my classmates will make out of law school seems a bit too far. If we're going to go that low, we need this to be a national thing, not just a string attached to bailout money. Otherwise, we're setting up those companies we're trying to bail out for failure.

That's true, I didn't think of that when I initially posted.

decides2dream

soulsinging wrote:

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

I'd have liked to see it be less like 200K or 250K, but just the fact this was signed into law is noteworthy. I'd imagine that 500K was done in order to get more tax revenue on all the levels from these people.

I don't know about going that low. I'm all for eradicating wealth disparity, but knocking CEO's down to levels that my classmates will make out of law school seems a bit too far. If we're going to go that low, we need this to be a national thing, not just a string attached to bailout money. Otherwise, we're setting up those companies we're trying to bail out for failure.

perhpas it's just a wee bit skewed - aka fucked up - that a first year lawyer makes 200-250k?



in all seriousness, i think the 500k cap is fair. yes, these companies got bailouts, and even if they want all new management, they need to offer an equitable salary to attract the right minds to the job and rebuild, and not waste the taxpayer money by failing further, but to get up and get profitable again. this is the age we live in, and supply/demand will always determine salaries. yes, i would absolutely love to see better salaries for all across the board, but those at the top will always get a bigger piece of the pie, and to some extent, i believe rightly so. definitely not to the ridiculous extent we have seen, especially when doing a piss-poor job on top of it...but sure, they will always demand, and command, big salaries.

soulsinging

decides2dream wrote:

perhpas it's just a wee bit skewed - aka fucked up - that a first year lawyer makes 200-250k?

in all seriousness, i think the 500k cap is fair. yes, these companies got bailouts, and even if they want all new management, they need to offer an equitable salary to attract the right minds to the job and rebuild, and not waste the taxpayer money by failing further, but to get up and get profitable again. this is the age we live in, and supply/demand will always determine salaries. yes, i would absolutely love to see better salaries for all across the board, but those at the top will always get a bigger piece of the pie, and to some extent, i believe rightly so. definitely not to the ridiculous extent we have seen, especially when doing a piss-poor job on top of it...but sure, they will always demand, and command, big salaries.

It's a LOT skewed, though I think it's actually around $160k for first first-year lawyers in major cities. But still, it's close enough. When I worked for a firm (not quite one of those firms, but close enough) and heard what even young attorneys bill clients all I could think was "I am definitely not worth that much).

Regardless though, you can't expect top CEO's with years of experience to be willing to go to a company that's offering a salary barely a cut above the greenest MBA or JD grads. And while I'm not saying $250k is a hardship on people or a difficult salary to live on (or even middle class as John McCain said), if you're taking on the task of trying to salvage a critical company and help taxpayers recover billions of dollars in loans... I'd say you deserve a BIT of luxury. $500k seems a fair cap to me. If they get the company solvent again and pay back that loan, they can all do as they will with their salaries again. I just hope it teaches them a bit of wisdom and perspective.

decides2dream

soulsinging wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

perhpas it's just a wee bit skewed - aka fucked up - that a first year lawyer makes 200-250k?

in all seriousness, i think the 500k cap is fair. yes, these companies got bailouts, and even if they want all new management, they need to offer an equitable salary to attract the right minds to the job and rebuild, and not waste the taxpayer money by failing further, but to get up and get profitable again. this is the age we live in, and supply/demand will always determine salaries. yes, i would absolutely love to see better salaries for all across the board, but those at the top will always get a bigger piece of the pie, and to some extent, i believe rightly so. definitely not to the ridiculous extent we have seen, especially when doing a piss-poor job on top of it...but sure, they will always demand, and command, big salaries.

It's a LOT skewed, though I think it's actually around $160k for first first-year lawyers in major cities. But still, it's close enough. When I worked for a firm (not quite one of those firms, but close enough) and heard what even young attorneys bill clients all I could think was "I am definitely not worth that much).

Regardless though, you can't expect top CEO's with years of experience to be willing to go to a company that's offering a salary barely a cut above the greenest MBA or JD grads. And while I'm not saying $250k is a hardship on people or a difficult salary to live on (or even middle class as John McCain said), if you're taking on the task of trying to salvage a critical company and help taxpayers recover billions of dollars in loans... I'd say you deserve a BIT of luxury. $500k seems a fair cap to me. If they get the company solvent again and pay back that loan, they can all do as they will with their salaries again. I just hope it teaches them a bit of wisdom and perspective.

i agreed. thus why i said i think 500k is fair.
here in NYC, 250k really isn't an enormous salary, at all....especially if someone wants to live fairly well within the confines of manhattan - and not in a rent-controlled flat. :P it's definitely a nice salary, but it's not outrageous.

ajedigecko

i say fire them.......then allow them to proceed through the application process and then they will be paid accordingly to their resume.

i am certain, when an individual lists on their resume that they ran a business into the ground, they will be paid accordingly.

NoK

soulsinging wrote:

xavier mcdaniel wrote:

I'd have liked to see it be less like 200K or 250K, but just the fact this was signed into law is noteworthy. I'd imagine that 500K was done in order to get more tax revenue on all the levels from these people.

I don't know about going that low. I'm all for eradicating wealth disparity, but knocking CEO's down to levels that my classmates will make out of law school seems a bit too far. If we're going to go that low, we need this to be a national thing, not just a string attached to bailout money. Otherwise, we're setting up those companies we're trying to bail out for failure.

You and decides2dream are forgetting one major thing: these CEOs ran their business to the ground so their experience isn't exactly a positive aspect of their resume.

LikeAnOcean

I don't care what you do for a living, nobody is worth more than 500,000 a year to society.. there's people getting away with serious shit.

200,000. Maybe..

The average hardworking human is probably worth 30k to 100k.

My thought.

Anon

LikeAnOcean wrote:

I don't care what you do for a living, nobody is worth more than 500,000 a year to society.. there's people getting away with serious shit.

200,000. Maybe..

The average hardworking human is probably worth 30k to 100k.

My thought.

My company is making record profits. Should we be limited to 30-100k because you decide our contribution to society isn't that important? That is a very presumptuous statement. I happen to do a lot for society, as does my company.

Anon

Here is another thing. Steve Jobs has a annual salary of $1 a year. I highly doubt he lives in a cardboard box underneath some highway. This 'cap' Obama has issued does not stop the companies from loading the execs up with deferred stock options. So you can still polish the turd but in the end we all know what it is because of the smell.

chromiam

Does anyone realize that most CEOs recieve their compensation as stock options and a cash salary??? That's why Steve Jobs works for $1 a year and the CEO of Google only has his protection service paid for (about 450K/year). The real value and monetary growth for a CEO is in stocks... which Obama is not limiting at all.

Top 250 CEOs last year recieved about 30 million in compensation... only 1/3 in cash.

soulsinging

JB811 wrote:

Here is another thing. Steve Jobs has a annual salary of $1 a year. I highly doubt he lives in a cardboard box underneath some highway. This 'cap' Obama has issued does not stop the companies from loading the execs up with deferred stock options. So you can still polish the turd but in the end we all know what it is because of the smell.

That's a good point. Honestly, my dream would be to outlaw any employee of a given company from receiving pay in stock. I am convinced this is the cause of all our problems.