Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Friday, October 10, 2008

CEO Pay & Golden Parachutes.

Find it here

Question: “I have heard attacks against CEO’s getting “golden parachutes” lately, because the economic downturn and the fact that we are paying for some of these in the numerous bailouts. This policy of awarding money upon firing is becoming standard practice, but can’t be good for the future of our corporations. Although I realize that having government interfere in the private sector is generally bad, would it be a good idea to classify this as an illegal business practice for the good of the country. I just don’t see how rewarding CEO’s with millions for doing a bad job is a good thing. What is your opinion on the disparity of pay of CEO’s vs. your average worker, and should something be done about these golden parachutes?”—onethingmine

Answer: First off, let’s talk about CEO pay. Here’s Walter Williams from way back in 2005 on the subject,

Is a CEO worth millions of dollars to a corporation? When Jack Welch became General Electric’s CEO in 1981, the stock market judged the company to be worth about $14 billion. Through hiring and firing, buying and selling, Welch turned the company around before he retired in 2001. Today, GE is worth nearly $500 billion, making it one of the most valuable companies in the world. What’s a CEO worth for providing the brains and leadership to turn a $14 billion corporation into one worth $500 billion?

How about paying just a measly one-half of a percent of the increase in value? If that were the case, Welch’s total compensation would have come to nearly $2.5 billion, instead of the few hundred million that he actually received.

[...]

Here are a couple of questions to you: If you were the owner of GE, and a CEO could turn your $14 billion corporation into a $500 billion one, how much would you be willing to pay that man in salary and bonuses?

[...]

Percentage wise, these CEO’s make a very tiny sliver of a company’s revenues and yet, they have an enormous impact of the bottom line. Since that’s the case, companies are willing to pay top dollar to get the very best person they can for the job.

In other words, I think because people’s eyes get so big looking at how much CEO’s make, they tend to forget the size of the companies these people are managing and how much of an impact they have with their decisions.

As to CEO’s who do a bad job, that’s just the reality with every job: a small percentage of people are great at it, most people are average, and a small percentage do terrible work. Whether you’re talking about a CEO, a hot dog vendor, or the teacher at your local school, that’s the case. However, with CEOs, even the bad ones tend to make great money. That’s just the free market at work. Some professions are worth more than others and if people think they’re overpaid—well, the water’s also warm and anyone who thinks CEO’s are overpaid can start on the long, hard road to becoming a CEO any time they please.

Now, on to golden parachutes.

First off, severance pay is hardly unusual. That happens across a number of occupations and so it’s not unusual that a CEO might get some sort of compensation if he leaves his job—and obviously, a CEO is going to get a much larger severance package than a regular employee would.

Additionally, a golden parachute provides some job security. It helps insure that a CEO isn’t going to be fired for any little thing. That helps make taking a position at a company more attractive.

On the other hand, perversely, it may also ultimately make it easier to get rid of powerful CEO’s who may be tempted to cause problems for the company. Getting rid of a CEO who knows everything about your business, all your customers, and every iota of your business carries a certain risk factor that, say, firing a middle level manager doesn’t. It’s better for a CEO to have an incentive to leave happy and not start any sort of power struggle or create problems on the way out the door.

It’s also worth noting that there is no law that says a golden parachute has to be paid out. Any company, any time they hire a CEO, can choose not to include a golden parachute.

Personally, whether you’re talking about CEO’s, company owners, high powered lawyers like John Edwards, authors, movie stars, or professional athletes, I don’t worry too much about what they’re getting paid. In the long run, it would be considerably more dangerous to our freedom and the economy to have the government regulating salaries than it would be to have these people making a lot of money.

In our economic system, things are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.
Lefties are motivated by jealousy and envy.

Comments

I have a couple of difficulties with this:

1.  Properly speaking, all employees, including the CEO, are paid out of profits, not stock increases.  So to give the CEO the portion of the stock increase can reflect profits, but it can also reflect day to day variation. 

2.  I may be tremendously naive here, but I have this weird idea that #1 on the “job responsibilies” list for anyone above the rank of “director” ought to be “overall health of the company.” When a company goes bankrupt, therefore, no bonuses ought to be ordinarily paid a la AIG or Lehmann.

I have no quibble with high wages for top performers; I just don’t know that executive compensation as it is currently formulated really rewards this well.  For example, Home Depot rewarded Bob Nardelli with tens of millions of dollars for shepherding the company to....a dramatic loss in market share and profitability vs. Menard’s and Lowe’s.  The correlation between company performance and compensation needs to be a little tighter for me to defend the deals executives are getting today!

Bike Bubba on October 10, 2008 at 03:38 pm

BB: At the executive level, things are a bit different than they are at the regular employee level.  In the first place, CEOs are really independent contractors, but that’s not the truth behind the golden parachute situation.  Frankly, some of it is about the knowledge a departing CEO has of the company secrets.  In most cases, the parachute is to buy silence, and to make sure the person doesn’t have to go to work for one of your competitors.  It also has to do with the growth of the company, but that’s not the whole story.
Bottom line: Things(and people) are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what profit is.  Unlike what Marx believed, it’s not an “unearned increment” that is added on to the price of a good or service; it’s the reason the good or service is produced and made available in the first place.  It’s not arbitrary, either.  Sometimes populists regard profit as coming out of the pockets of the workers(like Marx believed), but that is simply not true.  Profit is what is left over after everyone else has been paid, including the bank, the stockholders, the suppliers and the employees.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 10, 2008 at 04:01 pm

Golden Parashoote? Is that when one pissez on a CEO?

They should get more of those.


Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie Arbuckle on October 10, 2008 at 05:03 pm

I believe the golden parachute should be directly associated with profit fo the company.

If the company is in the hole because of your actions, why should you be paid millions to have done it?

sanity on October 10, 2008 at 06:13 pm

If the company is in the hole because of your actions, why should you be paid millions to have done it?

sanity on October 10, 2008 at 06:13 pm

Because R108 says so. He is the economic genious around here. What are you? A marxist trying to limit our free markets?

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 08:58 am

Because R108 says so.

Actually, it’s sound economic reasoning, combined with real world knowledge of business, both of which you lack, pathological liar.
I notice you have yet to make an intelligent counter argument to this article or to anything anyone has said.
Typical.

Get help.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:06 am

If the company is in the hole because of your actions, why should you be paid millions to have done it?

sanity on October 10, 2008 at 06:13 pm

Answer this with sound economic reasoning, combined with real world knowledge of business. Then we can talk.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 09:15 am

Already did, liar.

Get help.

You have yet to make an argument in your own words.  If you have anything other than someone else’s emotional bullshit, get back to me.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:21 am

Already did, liar.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:21 am

Where?

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 09:32 am

BB: At the executive level, things are a bit different than they are at the regular employee level.  In the first place, CEOs are really independent contractors, but that’s not the truth behind the golden parachute situation.  Frankly, some of it is about the knowledge a departing CEO has of the company secrets.  In most cases, the parachute is to buy silence, and to make sure the person doesn’t have to go to work for one of your competitors.  It also has to do with the growth of the company, but that’s not the whole story.
Bottom line: Things(and people) are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what profit is.  Unlike what Marx believed, it’s not an “unearned increment” that is added on to the price of a good or service; it’s the reason the good or service is produced and made available in the first place.  It’s not arbitrary, either.  Sometimes populists regard profit as coming out of the pockets of the workers(like Marx believed), but that is simply not true.  Profit is what is left over after everyone else has been paid, including the bank, the stockholders, the suppliers and the employees.

Hope and change, in a free world, are the private possessions of motivated individuals.
robert108 on October 10, 2008 at 05:01 pm

You’re not only a pathological liar, you are stupid, as well.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:36 am

I guess making a declarative statement about what I have written, without actually having read it, is part of being a pathological liar.  You just don’t even bother to ascertain the truth before puking out your lies.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:38 am

If the company is in the hole because of your actions, why should you be paid millions to have done it?

sanity on October 10, 2008 at 06:13 pm

If you have anything other than someone else’s emotional bullshit, get back to me.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:21 am

Sanity. Per our resident economist you are spewing emotional bullshit. Please knock it off.
Enough of your marxist shit.
The company exists for the enrichment of the CEO, not the other way around. What the hell is wrong with you?
Just because he/she drove the company out of existence should they be driven to the local food bank? Hell no. They are to go and deposit their golden paraschute in a safe bank.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 09:39 am

On Sept. 29, when I commented that the stock market depreciated 1.2 trillion dollars on the Dow in one day ending at 10,365 with a loss of 777 points, robert108 responded, “they will get it all back, and more.”

As of today, the Dow is at 8,451. That is around 3 trillion dollar loss or 1914 points. Now robert108 says he has ‘business knowledge’ and ‘economic reasoning.’

robert108: ...it’s sound economic reasoning, combined with real world knowledge of business…

Now, I ask, Would you want to be in business with robert? I sure wouldn’t.


“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ~Theodore Roosevelt

nunez on October 11, 2008 at 09:41 am

BB: At the executive level.........You’re not only a pathological liar, you are stupid, as well.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:36 am

The above does not answer this: “If the company is in the hole because of your actions, why should you be paid millions to have done it?”

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 09:43 am

Sanity. Per our resident economist you are spewing emotional bullshit.
Please knock it off.
Enough of your marxist shit.
The company exists for the enrichment of the CEO, not the other way around.
What the hell is wrong with you?
Just because he/she drove the company out of existence should they be
driven to the local food bank? Hell no. They are to go and deposit their
golden paraschute in a safe bank.

Just keep making up things, pathological liar.

nutbag: I don’t hire morons.
Never underestimate the power of govt interference to screw up the economy.  It will all come back, and more, but this time, it will be to those who use good business practices, rather than those who exploit govt interference in the market.
Those who are failing are those who violated good business practices.
The market, absent govt interference, rewards good management, and punishes bad management.  None of your bullshit can change that; neither can govt social engineering.
You lefties are being taught a lesson, and are too stupid to learn it.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:46 am

Profit is what is left over after everyone else has been paid, including the bank, the stockholders, the suppliers and the employees.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:36 am

After saying so many times that I do not know what profit is you have the nerve to post what I described as profit.
What gives other than your reputation?

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 09:47 am

Just keep making up things, pathological liar.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:46 am

I made up nothing. Your words convict you.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 09:49 am

...what I described as profit.

Another lie from you.  After pressing you to come up with a definition, you gave only an accounting definition, which you undoubtedly cribbed from somewhere else.  I asked what profit is.  What does it represent?

Here’s the passage you failed to notice, liar:

Frankly, some of it is about the knowledge a departing CEO has of the company secrets.  In most cases, the parachute is to buy silence, and to make sure the person doesn’t have to go to work for one of your competitors.

Not only that, but here’s the real dishonest part of your parroting today:

Your original premise(the one you parroted from someone else) is in the form of begging the question. ”If the company is in the hole because of your actions...” This contains the assumption that the CEO, alone, can be responsible for a company’s losses.  You furnish no evidence that this is either true or possible; you leave out incompetence at any other level in the company, from middle management, production employees, support personnel or the shipping department.  While the CEO can be clearly responsible for making innovations that lead to increased profits, even the best innovations can be thwarted by any number of incompetent actions at lower levels in the company.  Your leftie bullshit is to assume the CEO is solely responsible for any bad thing that happens, and to deny any credit to CEOs of successful companies.
Your real Marxist agenda is to control the pay of CEOs, which is the first step to controlling the pay of everyone, which is what happens under Marxism.
This is just a bullshit argument to appeal to class envy and jealousy by falsely claiming that CEOs are overcompensated as a class.  Typical class envy.
Sorry you are too ignorant to know any of this.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:00 am

nutbag: The stock market doesn’t “depreciate”.  Do you even know why the stock market goes up and down, the actual mechanism involved?  Equipment depreciates, which is a permanent loss of value.  Being a very big auction, or rather a large group of auctions, the stock market goes up and down according to the wishes of the investors to buy or sell, at the moment.  Do you know what the DJIA is, or what it represents?  Do you know that even when the DJIA goes down, there are individual investments that are increasing in value?
If you don’t know any of this, you are simply talking out of your ass.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:04 am

Your original premise(the one you parroted from someone else) is in the form of begging the question. ”If the company is in the hole because of your actions...” This contains the assumption that the CEO, alone, can be responsible for a company’s losses.  You furnish no evidence that this is either true or possible; you leave out incompetence at any other level in the company, from middle management, production employees, support personnel or the shipping department.  While the CEO can be clearly responsible for making innovations that lead to increased profits, even the best innovations can be thwarted by any number of incompetent actions at lower levels in the company. Your leftie bullshit is to assume the CEO is solely responsible for any bad thing that happens, and to deny any credit to CEOs of successful companies.
Your real Marxist agenda is to control the pay of CEOs, which is the first step to controlling the pay of everyone, which is what happens under Marxism.
This is just a bullshit argument to appeal to class envy and jealousy by falsely claiming that CEOs are overcompensated as a class.  Typical class envy.
Sorry you are too ignorant to know any of this.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:00 am

If there was incompetence in the company and the CEO along with his deputies let it stand than the CEO is incompetent and does not deserve anything. Sorry you did not know this.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 10:09 am

I made up nothing.

You lie again.  Here is what you made up:

Sanity. Per our resident economist you are spewing emotional bullshit.  Lie.  I was addressing you.
Please knock it off.  Lie.  You should knock off parroting others.  You lied when you tried to speak for me.  I said no such thing.
Enough of your marxist shit.  Lie.  I said no such thing.  You just made that up.
The company exists for the enrichment of the CEO, not the other way around.  Lie.  I said no such thing.  You made up that lie, and tried to attribute it to me.

Your lies convict you, as always.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:11 am

If there was incompetence in the company and the CEO along with his deputies let it stand than the CEO is incompetent and does not deserve anything.

I won’t waste any more time with you, liar.  You demonstrate both your ignorance about business and your absolute reliance on emotional class envy bullshit.
As usual, you simply fabricate lies to support your emotional commitment to business-hating Marxism.
You just don’t know what you are talking about.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:15 am

Well hell. When people were saying our economy is heading south, you were calling people liers and saying our economy is solid, the market was doing fine and only a small portion of our market/economy is ailing: the housing market.

You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 10:25 am

What does your lame attempt at character assassination have to do with the subject of this thread?  Having failed to present any real arguments in favor of the position you parroted, you try to demean my knowledge, while you have yet to demonstrate a speck of knowledge of the subject on your part.
Typical pathological liar behavior.  When your lies are completely refuted, you try to deflect with ignorant personal attack.

Get help.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:31 am

Robert,

I’m curious and before you accuse me of spreading Marxist lies or launch into another ad hominem, will freely admit I am largely ignorant of business economics and just wanted to know.

”If the company is in the hole because of your actions...” This contains the assumption that the CEO, alone, can be responsible for a company’s losses.  You furnish no evidence that this is either true or possible

I was wondering how General Electric’s performance under Jack Welch can possibly be attributed to him alone. How can we make the assumption that the CEO can be responsible for the company’s profits/ gains?


Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.

ManofFireandLight on October 11, 2008 at 10:40 am

Man: I think you are being disingenuous, and yet will politely answer your question.
A CEO may have one of three effects, at any give time.  He or she can institute policies that, if succesfully implemented, can either increase profitability, decrease it, or maintain it at its present level.  However, it’s a little more complicated than that.  He or she may have a great business plan, but it may be sabotaged at any number of levels in the company, and the company might fail to grow or even decline in profitability.  If CEOs had absolute, totalitarian power over every aspect of the operations of the company, they would be totally responsible for any and all outcomes, but that’s not the case.  Stockholders have varying degrees of power in the running of the company, and are motivated by the short term goal of dividends and yearly earnings reports.  A good plan might take five years or so to fully implement, and might be sabotaged by the stockholders before it has time to fully deliver.
On the other hand, CEOs can’t just fire everyone who might be incompetent within the entire company, no matter what you may think.  CEOs are also dependent on their information network to know exactly what’s going on in all parts of the company, and that might not be a practical expectation.
It’s also not symmetrical.  While a bad CEO might be directly responsible for a company’s losses, it could also be exacerbated by employee incompetence at other levels.  Conversely, a good company infrastructure might obviate a bad CEO.  It’s a dynamic situation.
For a company to have the increase in profits that GE has enjoyed, all the parts have to work together, and that starts with a good CEO.
None of this has anything to do with the golden parachutes given to even mediocre of incompetent CEOs.  As I have explained twice already, it’s more about protecting company secrets, which might be available to a competitor who hires the former CEO, specifically for that purpose.  There is a price for secrecy, and it’s usually enough money to live comfortably without having to seek employment, and there is a price exacted for secrecy agreements.

In any case, in our system, things(and people) are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Hope this helps.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 11:02 am

BTW: My economic knowledge and personal experience leads me to be very skeptical of the real value of large corporations.  I would rather see consortiums of small, privately controlled businesses who cooperate on a big task, rather than large, out of touch corps who are essentially pets of big govt.
I favor my economic system to maximize individual independence.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 11:05 am

Sanity. Per our resident economist you are spewing emotional bullshit. 

Lie.  I was addressing you.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:11 am

Were you? Are you sure?
Let us check out the facts:

If the company is in the hole because of your actions, why should you be paid millions to have done it?

sanity on October 10, 2008 at 06:13 pm

Because R108 says so. He is the economic genious around here. What are you? A marxist trying to limit our free markets?

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 08:58 am

If the company is in the hole because of your actions, why should you be paid millions to have done it?


sanity on October 10, 2008 at 06:13 pm

Answer this with sound economic reasoning, combined with real world knowledge of business. Then we can talk.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 09:15 am

robert108

Already did, liar.
Get help.
You have yet to make an argument in your own words.  If you have anything other than someone else’s emotional bullshit, get back to me.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 09:21 am

Looks to me you are getting confused, as to who said what.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 03:12 pm

Well hell. When people were saying our economy is heading south, you were calling people liers and saying our economy is solid, the market was doing fine and only a small portion of our market/economy is ailing: the housing market.

You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 10:25 am

What does your lame attempt at character assassination have to do with the subject of this thread?  Having failed to present any real arguments in favor of the position you parroted, you try to demean my knowledge, while you have yet to demonstrate a speck of knowledge of the subject on your part.
Typical pathological liar behavior.  When your lies are completely refuted, you try to deflect with ignorant personal attack.

Get help.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 10:31 am

Not attempting to assasinate your character. You have assasinated your character long time ago.
Your words convict you.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 03:16 pm

Not attempting to assasinate your character. You have assasinated your
character long time ago.
Your words convict you.

Three more pieces of evidence that you are a sick, pathological liar.
Get help.
I recommened voluntary commitment to a mental institution.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 03:48 pm

You’re the one who made threats of sexual assault, then, when presented with your own statements, continued to lie and deny.
That proved you a pathological liar, devoid of any honesty and integrity.
You are very sick.  Get help.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 03:49 pm

Please show where I threatened with sexual assault or any other threat that I made. Until then, you are just making up stuff.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 07:13 pm

Please show where I threatened with sexual assault or any other threat that I made.

I already did, liar.  Get help.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 07:18 pm

Please show where I threatened with sexual assault or any other threat that I made.

I already did, liar.  Get help.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 07:18 pm

Where? When? How?

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 08:12 pm

You know; you are just lying about it.  I find it impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who is as dishonest and who lacks integrity as you.  IMO, you are a pathological liar who should be incarcerated.  If you have anyone in your life who cares about you, I hope they commit you for your own good, and for the good of others.
Goodbye.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 08:31 pm

Goodnight! Sleep well.

ellinas on October 11, 2008 at 08:40 pm

IMO, you are a pathological liar who should be incarcerated.  If you have anyone in your life who cares about you, I hope they commit you for your own good, and for the good of others.
Goodbye.

robert108 on October 11, 2008 at 08:31 pm

Your opinion carries no weight, as you have been thoroughly debunked. Example: When people were saying our economy is heading south, you were calling people liers and saying our economy is solid, the market was doing fine and only a small portion of our market/economy is ailing: the housing market. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
Wrong about CEO golden paraschutes, wrong about me threatening you, wrong as to reffering Sanity’s question as emotional bullshit and a host of other issues.
As a matter of fact you are the wrong type of person to speak for conservative issues as you are the fringe and not the mainstream.

ellinas on October 12, 2008 at 09:04 am

108, I’m not misunderstanding profit at all, and I have no trouble with paying the CEO a certain portion of long term *profit*.  I do have trouble with paying the CEO a certain portion of *short term stock gains* and then charging it against *profit*.

I also have trouble with the concept of “payoffs” to keep the former managers quiet.  Sorry, if that’s necessary, a company doesn’t need to keep the golden parachutes big.  It needs to seriously consider what kind of people it’s hiring to fill key positions.  Maybe a good start would be to ask former subordinates what they thought of a man’s honesty and integrity *before* hiring a man to management positions.

Yeah, that doesn’t keep the CEO’s golf and frat buddies in filet mignon and single malt scotch money.  However, it might do wonders for a company’s long term profitability.

Bike Bubba on October 13, 2008 at 06:48 am

BB: My comments about a knowledge of profit were directed at the pathological liar, not you.
I just have repeat that in our system, things(and people) are worth what someone is willing to pay for them, jealousy and envy notwithstanding.  I doubt that it can be demonstrated that the failure of any company is caused by its CEO compensation, in any way at all.  It’s just a class envy ploy to create bad feelings about big business, and to help institute socialism in our country.  Marx railed against big business, and nothing has changed in that respect since he wrote his stuff.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 07:42 am

I don’t think that corporate failure is caused by compensation, but I do think that one of the things you mentioned driving compensation--the need to prevent unscrupulous executives from pillaging former employers--clearly reflects a corporate culture of failure in many places.  If you need to “buy off” guys you no longer need, then you have a serious problem with your hiring process.

Bike Bubba on October 13, 2008 at 07:44 am

--the need to prevent unscrupulous executives from pillaging former employers--

I said no such thing.  In fact, a CEO knows company secrets, which would give competitors an advantage if they were known.  If you leave your job, and a rival firm hires you, it would be natural(not unscrupulous at all) to tell them what you know, and to aid your new employer by giving them information that would give them a competitive advantage.  This practice is know as “headhunting”, and used to be common at the top executive level before the golden parachute became the common practice.  It’s like baseball, where the wealthier teams have the financial clout to lure away the best players from less affluent teams.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 07:53 am

Actually, it’s still quite common, and one of my job responsibilities right now is to watch the competition for hints that they’re taking proprietary information and implementing it in their products.

And yes, it is unscrupulous, and huge settlements are routinely awarded when it’s proven that an executive has done this.  Employment agreements clearly note that this is forbidden.

The fact that I get to do this on a weekly basis really points out that something is REALLY screwed up when we need to monitor our competition on the assumption that our former employees WILL give away our secrets.

Bike Bubba on October 13, 2008 at 07:57 am

How do you expect them to be loyal to you when you are no longer paying them?  That seems unreasonable.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 08:11 am

Exodus 20:15.  Intellectual property, whether declared via patent/trademark/copyright or not, is property, and the fact that my company pays me does not entitle me to anything besides the pay they agree to give me.

Now there is a grey area of places where one can learn about techniques and apply them elsewhere, but reality is that when you need to “pay people off” to prevent them from revealing the details of your process (and that often unsuccessfully--remember the GM-VW lawsuits over JIT delivery techniques?) reveals that too many companies are hiring executives who don’t understand “Thou Shalt Not Steal.”

Bike Bubba on October 13, 2008 at 08:31 am

BB: I guess I wasn’t specific enough: I’m not talking about “trade secrets” here, which is what you assumed, I guess.  Just knowing how a company trains its executives, their fiscal policies and some of their practices are enough to give a competitor an edge.  I guess I can understand how you chose to take what I said, but you were wrong.  You might have asked.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 08:39 am

Actually, the huge payouts don’t follow unless you’re assuming that they’re going to provide something more concrete than experience.  Experience that is hugely profitable can be rewarded at Company A, no?

Sorry, but when we’re talking about “buying someone off,” that’s exactly what’s going on, that’s exactly what I’m working to prevent, and that’s exactly the problem corporate America has with hiring.  We look at golf buddies and fraternity brothers, but we don’t do the work of asking subordinates about character.

Big.Mistake.

Bike Bubba on October 13, 2008 at 08:52 am

Actually, the huge payouts don’t follow unless you’re assuming that they’re going to provide something more concrete than experience.

I disagree; as I have said, knowledge of a competitor’s strategy is quite valuable.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 09:00 am

B.B. Consider this: Several people comprise the board of the company. Some may be CEO’s of other companies, or sitting on the boards of other companies. They do hire their frat buddies, golf partners, etc to run a company. They in essence set compensation. The system is rigged in their favor, because no one on the board will vote to limit compensation or the golden paraschute of one of their own.
Because that CEO may be sitting on the board and deciding their compensation. You are correct in what you say. R108 will defend the undefendable when it comes to buissiness practicess.

ellinas on October 13, 2008 at 09:11 am

The reality is that compensation is set by market forces, except when unions are involved.

Once again: in our system, things(and people) are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.

Despite all the class envy rhetoric, that is the way it happens.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 09:15 am

108, company strategies are generally proprietary.  The person who takes them to a new employer is stealing from his old one.

Bike Bubba on October 13, 2008 at 09:27 am

In your opinion.  You seem determined to demonize business; I’m not.  It’s an explanation, not a crusade.
Whether you like it or not, that is the truth behind golden parachutes.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 09:32 am

The bottom line here is still this:

In our system, things(and people) are worth what people are willing to pay for them.  It’s not about feelings.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 09:34 am

I’m not trying to demonize business here.  I’m just pointing out what the logic of a golden parachute is.  It’s not honest pay for honest men, but rather a contract that can be instantly revoked if the executive violates that contract.

In other words, don’t tell about our capital plan, org charts, trade secrets, and so on unless you’d like to have us take that back instantly--and you have to prove you’re innocent in court to stop us.

Now that doesn’t do anything to an honest man who intends to keep his promises.  However, when you’re dealing with dishonest men, it really helps to have their family jewels in a lock box this way.

Yes, the market drives this, but even more, one could avoid this kind of thing by being a little more vigilant about the “character” issue during hiring.

Bike Bubba on October 13, 2008 at 10:58 am

Once again: In our system, things(and people) are worth what someone is willing to pay for them.  Whether you like it or not, someone is willing to pay those CEOs and to fund their golden parachutes.  That’s a fact.  You are trying to demonize the free enterprise system with a Marxist argument, whether you know it or not.
Despite your good intentions, allowing the govt to set compensation is evil.


"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108 on October 13, 2008 at 11:21 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.