"Top performers"? Really?

Post #316,025 by drook 10/22/09 10:24:06 AM Reply	"Top performers"? Really? These are the people responsible for needing the bailout in the first place. If this were a purchase, yes, the management would be fired. Assuming you are right that they are "hire-able by any company and highly sought after", do you think that's because they provide real value, or because they are in the right position in a thoroughly broken system? (Gee, did I display my opinion a bit in that question?) -- Drew
Post #316,027 by beepster 10/22/09 10:43:46 AM Reply	There's no definition attached saying this is limited to C level management staff. In fact, most of the real money is made by fund managers that were, indeed, making money and making money for many many others. Want to limit bonuses for a period of time, I'm open for discussion. Want to can sr execs that failed their oversight role, again open to discussion... But to have the government dictate arbitrary salary levels based on the fact that gov't money is involved...way too slippery a slope for me to jump on. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #316,028 by drook 10/22/09 10:51:42 AM Reply	Saying that government money is "involved" ... ... is like saying that a pig is "involved" in making breakfast. -- Drew
Post #316,078 by beepster 10/23/09 12:09:19 AM Reply	Where do you stop? What he says he wants and what the rules will establish and allow are nearly always 2 completely different things. Is the next step that noone can bid on government contract unless they agree to some arbitrary gov't pay scheme? Certainly gov't money is "involved" there as well. Is the followup that a gov't sponsored healthcare plan is built, companies end up enrolling...then, in order to stay in without penalty the gov't forces their wage scale. This cat won't go back in the bag...and advantage is being taken of the attitude you show of "serves them right" to put us on the slope in the first place. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #316,082 by crazy 10/23/09 6:24:18 AM Reply	Difference between ownership and contracting These companies wouldn't exist without the intervention, and the people running them have seemed to different goals than the new owners. Us. So it is up to us to make sure they don't screw us AGAIN. Which means make the "top" level unattractive to the sharks. There are VERY few people that this impacts and those people are not necessarily the people that we want in place anyway. And while I know you think $200,000 is low for some key areas of the country (and I agree with you), is is very high for the regions that have been hit by the car problems. I would expect that a few people get more after they renegotiate, and the perks will be buried without being directly attributable to the person. If the feds did not come in, the vast majority of these people would be out of work, along with the line workers. You may say they are well recruited, but they also have a LOT of competition from other people, people who don't have the same interests as them, people who know that you need a little constructive destruction before you can stop repeating the same mistakes. So I suspect the feds have many resumes in their pocket, waiting to see what positions open up after the shit settles. No idea if the new people will be better or worse than the old people, but we already know the old people were bad at what they were doing. I think the term ossified applies. So this is probably one step of many squeezing them out without firing them directly.
Post #316,114 by beepster 10/23/09 3:53:09 PM Reply	Many contractors wouldn't exist without the government contracts. And if the goal is to get them out, get them out. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #316,118 by crazy 10/23/09 4:35:45 PM Reply	Whoa I said that was the difference. While I am aware of a variety of rules on contractors as they push diversity, this issue isn't concerning them, just the banks and autos. The feds own the banks and autos at this point. Simple as that. Without the fed money they would not exist, at least not without a dramatic convulsion of downsizing and brain drain. Whoever signs the paycheck gets to set the rate and tell the employees what their jobs are. Don't like it? Quit. Same thing you'd tell any employee of any entity, right?
Post #316,120 by beepster 10/23/09 4:44:13 PM Reply	They don't own controlling interest they own alot, but not 51% of CITI, for example..number is under 35. So it isn't like the boss coming in and setting wages. While you pretend this is how it is, they are NOT signing the paychecks. May have made it possible for there to be paychecks...but that doesn't mean they are signing them. Sorry. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #316,124 by Another Scott 10/23/09 5:41:12 PM Reply	Um... You agree that they wouldn't exist without the US bailout. Yet you say that the US doesn't have control. You are aware, I'm sure, that the US structured the bailout so that it wouldn't have control, by design. The politics of the arrangement is very different from the actual finances. Citibank's market cap is $102B - http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=c The US has effectively dumped over $300B into the firm - http://www.cbsnews.c...main4629267.shtml It's ours in all but name. The management there may grumble, but they know they have no choice - as a result of their own actions. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #316,143 by beepster 10/24/09 10:32:16 AM Reply	Politics vs Rules it makes a difference. It also makes a difference in that some have made attempts to pay back these funds, and some didn't want them in the first place...but now they are all subject to this. If what these people did was criminal. Put them in jail. Now you are simply allowing your prejudice against their actions drive a change in policy that is simply counter to the fundamentals of the econ system. If I had any confidence that it would stop here, I would likely agree with this group...I have zero, more likely negative faith that it will stop here. How "washington as usual" does it have to get before you all figure out this "change" thing was a sham? I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #316,029 by Another Scott 10/22/09 10:52:14 AM Reply	Details from Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg...&sid=a3H8.VP_CHsQ Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Executives at seven bailed-out companies including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. will have their pay cut by an average of 50 percent after negotiations with Kenneth R. Feinberg, the U.S. special master on compensation, two people familiar with the matter said. The cash portion of salaries for the 25 highest-paid employees will be slashed 90 percent, according to a person familiar with the plan who spoke anonymously because the details havenÂt been announced. Some cash will be replaced by shares that employees will be restricted from selling immediately, the same person said. An announcement could come this week. [...] 25 x 7 = 175 people will be affected. Feinberg's destroying the American Economy!!!!11!! :-/ USAToday has a flash graphic of executive compensation in 2007 - http://www.usatoday....eo-comp/flash.htm E.g. Pandit at Citigroup made a $250k salary, $0 bonus, and $2.9M in stock and options awards. They're not going to be hurting, not one bit. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #316,032 by drook 10/22/09 11:12:34 AM Reply	Wish I could download that I sorted by compensation change from '06. There seems to be no correlation at all to shareholder value. Tell me again how we're defining "top performers"? Because it seems to be we're using their current compensation to define it. -- Drew
Post #316,036 by Another Scott 10/22/09 11:31:31 AM Reply	FlashGot should grab it for you. It's also available in other places, like the AFL-CIO - http://www.aflcio.or...ceou/industry.cfm HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #316,088 by Mycroft_Holmes_Iv 10/23/09 8:49:34 AM Reply	Re: There's no definition attached But to have the government dictate arbitrary salary levels based on the fact that gov't money is involved...way too slippery a slope for me to jump on. What if gov't money isn't involved? I can give you a point in US history where gov't not only dictated arbitrary salary levels, but also prices for goods/services (in peacetime, no less).
Post #316,089 by boxley 10/23/09 9:15:07 AM Reply	so back to gas lines?
Post #316,132 by Mycroft_Holmes_Iv 10/24/09 7:00:58 AM Reply	Actually your both wrong This occurred under Nixon, not Carter (or FDR) Although, someone could argue that it lead to the gas lines under Carter -- naw...that would take the stigma off of Carter.
Post #316,142 by beepster 10/24/09 10:23:51 AM Reply	Re: Actually your both wrong I knew you were talking wage and price freezes under nixon in early 70s. It has been nearly universally accepted as a really bad move. My response was simply to say we've done stupid things before and we're apparently primed and ready to do stupid things again. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #316,166 by Mycroft_Holmes_Iv 10/24/09 10:00:07 PM Reply	Chuckle Not arguing it was a GOOD idea... but I do laugh when people (usually Republicans) have complained that "Obama is doing something UNPRECEDENTED".
Post #316,173 by boxley 10/25/09 9:44:31 AM Reply	repos that used to be democrats maybe we had wage and price controls from hoover till kennedy then johnson launched the war on poverty and quickly got enmired I think carter was the first to repeal most of that with reagan repealing the rest. Now we are rapidly going towards the nixon model
Post #316,113 by beepster 10/23/09 3:47:46 PM Reply	that makes it all better just like detention camps. We had those too. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.

Welcome to IWETHEY!