Comments on: Maximum wage

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:56:37 +0000

Moot point, really. The execs have contracts. Severance packages are prenegotiated and probably air-tight (you’d be a fool not to spend 2k to protect 20mil). Execs WILL get their money. Likely, it will just be differed with–my guess–interest.

By: Sebastian-PGP

Sebastian-PGP — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:12:37 +0000

Yeah, when this many of them agree…you know something’s up. The short version is, a bunch of companies and people got greedy, made some long shot bets that unsurprisingly didn’t pan out, and the taxpayers are footing the bill.

By: Standard Mischief

Standard Mischief — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:04:07 +0000

I don’t see an issue of Uncle Sam having strings attached to the bailout money, as long as the company was free to reject the terms and walk away from the table.

You can pretty much assume, however, that any scheme that the (R) and (D) critters come up with, I’m going to object to.

By: Sebastian-PGP

Sebastian-PGP — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:47:34 +0000

Well, if anyone thinks that 10 or 20 mil isn’t enough and wants to quit, I’ll take their job for 5 mil.

BTW I think the link isn’t the one you were looking for.

By: Madrocketscientist

Madrocketscientist — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 20:22:11 +0000

I don’t think people would have such an issue with executive pay if it was only used to reward performance, rather than being paid rain or shine.

Nothing worse than watching the value of a company you have stock in start to tank, and then watch the CEO walk away with a whole buttload of money as a reward for letting the value go into the tank.

To be fair, however, the issue of executive pay is generally one that should be dealt with by the shareholders and the board, but I do agree that if a CEO has to go hat in hand to the fed for a bailout, he should not profit from it. It would be like the bank giving a homeowner a check for $10K when the bank forecloses on the home.