Oh come on. That’s bullshit, right wing media is awash in the word socialism to try and scare people.
Yes, this… but actually I think it’s an interesting idea… certinly a deterant to taking the bailout. Of course, I’m sure there are ways around it (ferrari ‘company car’? Business office/luxury appartment in aspen? Need I ask about the company jet?)
That shit’s already happening with or without bailout money. But you’re right, there should be a deterrent to taking the bailout money. That was one of the complaints against TARP by people on the left, that executives and companies that take TARP money should face consequences.
I view it as some very necessary pandering to the angry masses. Remember, angry masses tend to lynch people. Especially if told to eat cake.
Really Hanacker? I think it’s a step in the right direction. Namely the direction of not giving gigantic monetary rewards to people who move risky and unproven financial products.
Personally I think these guys get paid way too much even in good times. Does it seem fucked up to anyone else that the easiest way to get rich is to be in finance? People who move numbers and dollar signs from computer to computer make far more than people who design graphics cards or write books or save people from fires or fly fighter jets. Doesn’t really seem fair.
Of course I understand why it has to be this way, it’s just one of the sadder byproducts of capitalism.
So the executives are capped at $500k while they work to get their companies out from under TARP? In effect, they’re capped despite possibly turning things around and doing a good job? Or, in some cases, “paying” for the fuckups of predecessors?
Yeah, like these guys were really worth multimillion dollar salaries to begin with. Keep that lie alive man.
It’s only capped until they payback government funds. Seems like an incentive to do a good job to me. You’re also assuming that every person that’ll be capped is a replacement. While AIG is exempt (since this came after that), one of the execs involved in this mess is still pulling in a million a month. I haven’t checked to see if he’s still working there now, but he was even after AIG needed to be bailed out and testified at the hearings that were held in Sept/Oct.
No, they can be given huge buckets of options with the restriction that they can’t be exercised until the company has worked its way free from TARP support.
I never asserted they were, I was just pointing out that historically when times are tough people do not have a lot of patience for rich folks complaining about being forced to do with only moderate luxury instead of the extreme decadence they had become accustomed to.
Doesn’t matter if they are or not. Virtually every other exec of a hundred million+ dollar company is receiving a salary well over $500,000. I’m sure you’ll get a few guys willing to take a pay cut to try to save the companies and look like heroes, but why wouldn’t most of the talented guys take the sure money as an exec of a company allowed to pay whatever they feel like? Maybe you think any warm body could do as good a job as the previous execs (and in this specific case you’d probably be right), but I guess we’ll see going forward.
Are you saying there’s no one underneath them who can step up and take over and use it as an opportunity to show they can run the company well?
How the hell does anyone get promoted?
Your argument is predicated on the assumption that top guys really are worth that and basic supply and demand will result in incompetents working for the low low salary of 500k.
I find that assumption hard to buy.
No, my assumption is that the top x number of executives (where x is the number of positions available to executives that pay over $500,000) are noticeably better than all the potential executives below them and that supply and demand will place the best talent in the highest paying positions. Your assumption seems to be that there isn’t that much of a dropoff in ability from the tenth best executive in the world to the x+1th best executive. Maybe you’re right, but I’m sticking with my assumption until I see some data otherwise.
Ohh, you mean magic, like how the best and the brightest (the most well payed) nearly destroyed our financial system?
No, my assumption that is normal supply and demand simply can’t explain the level of pays top executives get and thus supply and demand is being subverted by a variety of factors.
Remember we are specifically talking about the execs for companies that are so mismanaged that they require taxpayer bail out to survive. Those best and brightest.
Sure. I just think it’s pretty absurd that the amount someone is payed directly denotes their relative skill level. Well, if their skill is selling themselves… then sure.
And I don’t mean to ignore the fact that supply and demand do act as a pretty decent filter in many jobs, allowing the skilled to make more money, but just as often there’s many exceptions (as I’m sure we’ve all encountered) where other circumstances determine pay and position beyond just their ability to do the job well.
I’m so angry at you jerks and Obama. I just bought my mistress a new house and now it’s going to take years to pay off.
You think you’ve got problems? What am I going to do with my ice cream helicopter? The market for them just crashed.