The politics of executive compensation

#26
#26
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...
Actually, If more executives had the balls to do this then companies would be better off. Exhibit A, GM.
 
#27
#27
lawgator1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just who creates and benefits from this perception... or could we call it "fear"?

Probably the same ones who scared old people by lying about Soc Sec reform.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
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.





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.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the perception? I just don't understand this concept that corporations should act empatheticly.
 
#31
#31
crazyguy said:
And that's because somewhere back in negotiations years ago...an executive didn't stand up to the joke that is a union.
Click to expand...

Not really. I'm not saying that these executives are stand up guys or anything but the UAW has been able to get laws passed that make it near impossible for car companies to deal with them.
 
#32
#32
crazyguy said:
What's wrong with the perception? I just don't understand this concept that corporations should act empatheticly.
Click to expand...

Of course they should. But they should not be run as social programs employing people who do not have enough worth to pay for themselves. A good company will always balance that cold edge with empathy for and generosity toward its employees.

NUCOR steel makes a good example. They treat their employees with respect. The employee compensation is based heavily on production bonuses. During a down turn, the employees had lost a large percentage of their bonus (30% IIRC)... mgt voluntarily lost 80% of theirs.

The military had a good way of summarizing: Mission first, people always.
 
#33
#33
sjt18 said:
Of course they should. But they should not be run as social programs employing people who do not have enough worth to pay for themselves. A good company will always balance that cold edge with empathy for and generosity toward its employees.

NUCOR steel makes a good example. They treat their employees with respect. The employee compensation is based heavily on production bonuses. During a down turn, the employees had lost a large percentage of their bonus (30% IIRC)... mgt voluntarily lost 80% of theirs.

The military had a good way of summarizing: Mission first, people always.
Click to expand...

NUCOR almost went bankrupt before the steel price went crazy. their cost of production is much higher than foreign companies. without US protection of the steel industry they undoutably woudl have gone bust. they actually aren't too far off gm.
 
#34
#34
sjt18 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not only a Dem problem, it's also a GOP problem.
Bush started the bailouts, Obama continued them.
Both sides are at fault.
 
#35
#35
sjt18 said:
Just who creates and benefits from this perception... or could we call it "fear"?

Probably the same ones who scared old people by lying about Soc Sec reform.
Click to expand...


033108erin%20burnett2.JPG
 
#36
#36
BigPapaVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

Glenn Beck is behind this attempt at "fear mongering".
 
#37
#37
droski said:
NUCOR almost went bankrupt before the steel price went crazy. their cost of production is much higher than foreign companies. without US protection of the steel industry they undoutably woudl have gone bust. they actually aren't too far off gm.
Click to expand...

Happen to know a good bit about them... and you're not entirely correct. Few American companies and in particular steel companies were in a better position to ride out the recession.

They are WAY off of GM. Not even close. The mgt style is completely different. It is very non-union to include the employees.

As far as costs are concerned, NUCOR is better than most steel companies in the developed world. Countries without wage protections, OSHA, EPA, etc and WITH very heavy market protections of their own (like China) are difficult to compete with because the field is very tilted. But that is true of every industry.

The American printing industry is very competitive and technologically advanced. Like every other industry, it is handicapped by US tax law, regulation, and labor/wage law. Many books that were once printed here are printed in China. Some are designed in India, printed in China, and bound on a ship making the 2 week trip to a west coast port. That's an advantage of slave labor.

The steel industry does not compete as strongly as we need it to on whole but not because of companies that follow the NUCOR model.
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
sjt18 said:
Who said Bush was a conservative his last term?
Click to expand...

It was not just Bush...

Final passage in the Senate was 74-29

40 Dems 33 GOP 1 (I) voted for the bill
9 Dems 15 GOP 1 (I) voted against

Sen Kennedy not voting


Both parties are at fault.
 
#41
#41
Vols378 said:
It was not just Bush...

Final passage in the Senate was 74-29

40 Dems 33 GOP 1 (I) voted for the bill
9 Dems 15 GOP 1 (I) voted against

Sen Kennedy not voting


Both parties are at fault.
Click to expand...
Who said there weren't a bunch of "me too" liberals in the GOP Senate membership?

That's why so many of them are scared to death of the Tea Party... The TP will hold them accountable. Lindsay Graham is VERY fortunate not to be running this year.

It is stupid to intervene in the very healthy failure of a single company no matter who does it. If companies do not fear failure then they become insensitive and reckless.

One of the things that happens to a leper is they lose feeling in their skin. They get wounds and infections but cannot feel them.

Gov't bailouts are to business what leprosy is the body.
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
BigPapaVol said:
Bush was solely a social conservative. Exactly where we don't need him.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I would disagree to some extent on not needing that. I would prefer a social libertarian on most issues but ONLY if they were also an economic libertarian.

I believe social conservatism is more practically sound. therefore, I think it would win out in a free marketplace of ideals where everyone had to pay the economic costs of their moral decisions.
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
Wasn't there some group of execs that took one dollar for a year during bailout period? That was public relations/politics.
Click to expand...

Don't be fooled by the stories of executives taking one dollar in pay for the year. That was the spin that a few companies used. However, I would be willing to bet that the $1 was CASH compensation received during the year. I'm quite sure that those executives had the rest of their compensation deferred (and paid the following year) and/or they received huge amounts of stock options and/or shares of deferred stock.
 
Last edited:
#44
#44
sjt18 said:
I would disagree to some extent on not needing that. I would prefer a social libertarian on most issues but ONLY if they were also an economic libertarian.

I believe social conservatism is more practically sound. therefore, I think it would win out in a free marketplace of ideals where everyone had to pay the economic costs of their moral decisions.
Click to expand...

I've always thought the socially liberal and economic conservative platforms was more in line with libertarians. Be fiscally responsible, let the free market reign, legalize all victimless crimes, etc. Give people freedom to do as they please within reason, don't legislate morality, and have a strong military with a small foreign footprint. Give people more freedom but also require they live with their choices.
 
#45
#45
rjd970 said:
I've always thought the socially liberal and economic conservative platforms was more in line with libertarians. Be fiscally responsible, let the free market reign, legalize all victimless crimes, etc. Give people freedom to do as they please within reason, don't legislate morality, and have a strong military with a small foreign footprint. Give people more freedom but also require they live with their choices.
Click to expand...
That platform resonates with many. I can even live with less military if it mean we would cut everything else similarly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#46
#46
BigPapaVol said:
That platform resonates with many. I can even live with less military if it mean we would cut everything else similarly.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I find it amazing it is such a hard sell the herd mentality.
 
#47
#47
rjd970 said:
I find it amazing it is such a hard sell the herd mentality.
Click to expand...

that's because too many people who rave about personal freedom expect the government to step in and prop them up when things get tough
 
#48
#48
rjd970 said:
I've always thought the socially liberal and economic conservative platforms was more in line with libertarians. Be fiscally responsible, let the free market reign, legalize all victimless crimes, etc. Give people freedom to do as they please within reason, don't legislate morality, and have a strong military with a small foreign footprint. Give people more freedom but also require they live with their choices.
Click to expand...

I can definitely live with that as ruling public policy and I am pretty conservative in my own moral choices.

The only thing right now that keeps me from being a big "L" Libertarian is abortion. I do not view it as a moral issue with respect to the law. It is a fundamental, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL, human rights issue. The questions is just this: Under what circumstances can an innocent person be purposefully and arbitrarily exterminated?

The weight of proof should lie ONLY with those claiming the child is "not a person" to demonstrate why.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top