Comments on: Don’t Slash Executive Compensation

By: andrew

andrew — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:48:36 +0000

we all love to complain but it is pure jealousy because we are not getting these outrageous pay ourselves.

By: katydid13

katydid13 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:39:24 +0000

I say let them work for civil service wages like the rest of us who work for the government.

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:20:06 +0000

It’s a crazy world; if those bozos were in charge of a smaller business they’d be out on the streets begging because it’s obvious to anyone with a brain that they are not fit to run a business – and yet they receive their bonuses and increased salaries – go figure.

By: hibob

hibob — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:16:33 +0000

one more Bob chiming in.
@Rich: “The arguments about if CEOs are paid for performance (they are)”
Yes. CEO compensation is determined by committees and chairmen completely independent of the CEOs, they work out transparent compensation packages based on company performance, put the packages to a vote of the shareholders, and NEVER (since they started getting caught) revalue stock options after the stock tanks.
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
CEOs are paid for their performance and ability – for the most part, their ability to hire and manipulate the people who determine their compensation.

At any rate, I haven’t heard any reasons outside of realpolitik as to why the fed couldn’t have preserved the just the functions of the bailed out banks, etc. while letting the corporate entities themselves fail, a la the RTC in the S&L crisis back in ’89. Keep the people servicing the notes, fire the people (and their bosses) who wrote the bad ones.

By: Rich

Rich — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:54:48 +0000

In general, we (economists) are not actually full of crap. We appreciate that the picture is far more complex than presented in the populist media, or in simplistic blog posts that advocate the taring and feathering of all those greedy capitalist bastards. The arguments about if CEOs are paid for performance (they are), whether the labor market for CEOs actually works (it does) are clearly not of interest here.

Interesting the first poster hits the nail on the head. These CEOs are heavily compensated in stock and options, and guess what happened to the value of that compensation when the company tanked?

Gregg, you have a great blog, but occasionally, you get out of your depth.

By: Travis

Travis — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:39:26 +0000

Individuals can still do it. It is just different as to how it is done. Yes?

By: NewEnglandBob

NewEnglandBob — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:33:32 +0000

So many people named Bob are commenting here so I will jump in too.

If ‘we’ are going to clean house, lets go all the way. Corporations can just declare bankruptcy and be forgiven their debts when they get in trouble. The government changed the law a few years ago so that individuals can not do that. Why should corporations be allowed to do it?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:12:30 +0000

John: I think caning is still legal in certain parts of far eastern Cuba. If you catch my drift.

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:34:24 +0000

The argument for “retention bonuses” and the like for these guys is straightforward and logical: they might indeed move to other companies.

In which case, we’d then have to cope with the consequences of the failure and collapse of those companies, too. Keeping the rat bastards where they are might be the best way to contain the havoc they wreak.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:11:44 +0000

If they want to ‘go Galt’, let them. I’m not sure where they’re going to go where they’ll attract such immense salaries & benefits, but if they want to bail, let them. For each one that leaves, there are a hundred greedy assholes waiting in the wings. They can be replaced.

If Malcolm Gladwell is to be believed, their primary talent is being tall.

It would be very interesting to see what would happen if Obama treated Wall St. like Reagan treated PATCO.