The politics of executive compensation

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,736
Likes
42,919
#1
Erin Burnett was on this morning and remarked about a publication that came out -- a study of executive compensation at the country's largest companies. I cannot recall which company it was, but she mentioned that a particular executive had overseen the laying off of 9,000 employees whilst receiving a record $20 million plus compensation for the year.

Now, I realize thats his job. And part of why he makes what he does is managing the company through tough times which includes laying off a lot of employees.

The politics of this, however, is bad. To that 9,000 people (and those like them) that is just not going to look good. This is why I think think things like Wall Street reform are not going to resonate with the voters in November as an issue. They see value to reform, real or imagined, because of things like this.
 
#2
#2
Politics of executive compensation doesn't exist. It's the bullshiz lefty politicians that use this to use class division in garnering the "I'll rob Peter to pay you" vote. Nothing more.

Private company compensation programs have nothing whatsoever to do with the herd of idiots in DC, most of whom wouldn't know private income from a toilet.
 
#4
#4
what kind of reform would address this in your opinion? Laws that dictate pay scales for private companies would be ok? How about a set rate for billable hrs? Maybe everyone should just make $15/hr no matter the job
 
#5
#5
I understand what you are saying Law, but honestly if it chaps you that much then vote with your wallet and try to pick a more socially aware company. The market can fully decide this if people would just take their time (if this thing really bothers them) and support companies that invest more into their workforce. But that is completely their prerogative and should NEVER be decided by the Gov't.
 
#6
#6
BigPapaVol said:
Politics of executive compensation doesn't exist. It's the bullshiz lefty politicians that use this to use class division in garnering the "I'll rob Peter to pay you" vote. Nothing more.

Private company compensation programs have nothing whatsoever to do with the herd of idiots in DC, most of whom wouldn't know private income from a toilet.
Click to expand...


Wasn't there some group of execs that took one dollar for a year during bailout period? That was public relations/politics.

Just saying that people perceive a link and attribute a lot of their own misfortune to others casting them aside and getting rich in the process. As wrong as that might be, it is the perception.

And while I agree that the Dems use that to cause division, I don't think it is fair to lay that perception at their feet as it is not just a political issue.
 
#7
#7
lawgator1 said:
Just saying that people perceive a link and attribute a lot of their own misfortune to others casting them aside and getting rich in the process. As wrong as that might be, it is the perception.
Click to expand...

change things because people are uneducated. Interesting idea
 
#8
#8
lawgator1 said:
Erin Burnett was on this morning and remarked about a publication that came out -- a study of executive compensation at the country's largest companies. I cannot recall which company it was, but she mentioned that a particular executive had overseen the laying off of 9,000 employees whilst receiving a record $20 million plus compensation for the year.

Now, I realize thats his job. And part of why he makes what he does is managing the company through tough times which includes laying off a lot of employees.

The politics of this, however, is bad. To that 9,000 people (and those like them) that is just not going to look good. This is why I think think things like Wall Street reform are not going to resonate with the voters in November as an issue. They see value to reform, real or imagined, because of things like this.
Click to expand...

How do you think it looked to the millions across the US with no job when the first lady and friends galavanted around Europe?

I'll hang up and listen.
 
#9
#9
a ceo's job is to make his shareholders money, not to save jobs. this isn't france.
 
#10
#10
utvolpj said:
what kind of reform would address this in your opinion? Laws that dictate pay scales for private companies would be ok? How about a set rate for billable hrs? Maybe everyone should just make $15/hr no matter the job
Click to expand...


Don't misunderstand. I am not supporting the conclusion some reach that, knee jerk, its not fair he make so much when others are losing their jobs. I get why it is and why that is misleadingly oversimplistic.

I am just saying that it is no surprise, given the current economy, that people would be put off by it.


OrangeYankee said:
I understand what you are saying Law, but honestly if it chaps you that much then vote with your wallet and try to pick a more socially aware company. The market can fully decide this if people would just take their time (if this thing really bothers them) and support companies that invest more into their workforce. But that is completely their prerogative and should NEVER be decided by the Gov't.
Click to expand...


The percentage of people in the consumer economy who change what they buy, or who they buy it from, because of their perception of how "fair" the company is on such issues is probably infinitesimal.

People just think its wrong. The solution is not to fix the alleged problem, which is fake, but rather to fix the perception, which is real. Numbers like that just feed the perception.
 
#12
#12
VOLinthaATL said:
How do you think it looked to the millions across the US with no job when the first lady and friends galavanted around Europe?

I'll hang up and listen.
Click to expand...


It looked really bad. And while her doing that has about a .000000000000000000000001 % effect on the economy, it was pretty bad public relations wise. As is this.
 
#13
#13
Let's get down to the core of the issue, what should be done, if anything, in your opinion?


I don't have a problem with it, if I did I could choose to make sure no dollar I ever spent went into doing business with any such company.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
Wasn't there some group of execs that took one dollar for a year during bailout period? That was public relations/politics.

has nothing at all to do with politics. Business public relations is a private company matter. The idiots and bloodsuckers in DC have nothing to do with it.

Just saying that people perceive a link and attribute a lot of their own misfortune to others casting them aside and getting rich in the process. As wrong as that might be, it is the perception.

idiots that ascribe their own shortcomings to the success of others are idiots and should be purged from the gene pool. The fact that huge swaths of said idiots get to vote and do so in overwhelmingly left numbers comes as no surprise. Politicians continue to play on the class warfare angle and they are as sorry as those who vote based upon it.

And while I agree that the Dems use that to cause division, I don't think it is fair to lay that perception at their feet as it is not just a political issue.
Click to expand...
see bold. It's only a political issue because the lefties can use it to garner votes and the media won't call them on the stupidity. If they were serious about the issue, they would be calling for boycotts rather than pandering for votes. They're not, hence it's just vote buying.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
It looked really bad. And while her doing that has about a .000000000000000000000001 % effect on the economy, it was pretty bad public relations wise. As is this.
Click to expand...

But it's not about effect on the economy remember? It's about, "perception."
 
#16
#16
Capitalism and free market works itself out. Well, unless the current administration gets the way and turns this into another socialistic bordering on communistic country.
 
#17
#17
Again, I am not defending the accuracy of the perception. I am not particularly interested in who you think is to blame for the perception -- you think its "lefties" but I think that is superficial.

If you are running that company and see that report and don't flinch then I would not be able to understand that.
 
#19
#19
LG what makes this political? Are you suggesting that people put off by this will favor one particular party? If so, you need to make a logical link between the party identity and this particular potential perception.

I could easily say it creates a negative perception of those in power - if that's the case it's worse for Ds than Rs.

I don't doubt some have the perception but as BPMFV has suggested - what's the political angle.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
If you are running that company and see that report and don't flinch then I would not be able to understand that.
Click to expand...

Then I assume you cannot even begin to comprehend how Obama even shows his face after hearing and reading all the reports showing his "recovery summer" is a flat out failure and getting worse all the while he jet sets out to wherever he wants and money is no concern. Must eat you up.
 
#21
#21
i also question this theory by LG that there is some widespread joe six outrage over things of this variety. at least any widespread outrage by those who can read and actually vote.
 
#22
#22
so he laid off 9,000 people making lets say an average of $50K a year so that means he saved the company $450,000,000 in payroll.

Whats the problem?
 
#23
#23
As "ugly" as these layoffs may have appeared, it made the company more profitable so the guy got his bonus. It also gave the company and its owners a return most if not all of which was reinvested... which in turn created new jobs and in the very near term MORE jobs.

The liberal lack of understanding of the relationship between efficiency, economic growth, and new job creation is very often astounding.

LG, inefficiency is a very big part of why liberal solutions DO NOT WORK. The free market system may seem brutal at times but it assures increasing efficiency and thus new wealth creation... and thus the greatest good for the greatest number.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
Again, I am not defending the accuracy of the perception. I am not particularly interested in who you think is to blame for the perception -- you think its "lefties" but I think that is superficial.

If you are running that company and see that report and don't flinch then I would not be able to understand that.
Click to expand...

If you are running that company and aren't a donor to the Dems (thus in line for a bailout) then laying off 9000 is favorable to closing up shop and laying off 100,000.

One reason the US car industry is so sick is that Unions with liberal political support have interrupted the necessary business/labor cycles that create efficiency. The bailouts are a short term fix at best because the root problems were not dealt with... particularly labor paid more than it is worth for a subpar product.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top