Posted on 02/01/2007 10:42:36 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
It's not really "populist" to warn executives that if they keep throwing money at non-performers, the workers will revolt and the resulting democrat majority will destroy our country.
But shortly after the figures were released President George W. Bush took aim at the large salaries being awarded to company executives, saying they should be awarded for performance and performance alone. The comments, made in a speech to Wall Street bosses, matched those made in a White House report on the matter. "Government should not decide compensation for America's corporate executives," the report said. "But the salaries and bonuses of chief executives should be based on their success at improving their companies and building value for their shareholders.".
I agree, but the Board needs encouragement, particularly in the unrealistic climate that has been established. I don't understand why boards feel the need to give insane amounts of money to people who are doing a bad job, for example; it would be one thing if the swollen salaries were performance based, but I think unfortunately the boards often are not representing the shareholders very well. Maybe a little outside encouragement will give them the courage to buck the trend and tie the salary to successful performance.
You mean he is morphing into Guilni? (OK that was a cheap shot :)
Agreed, but isn't that a matter for the board of directors and the shareholders to resolve?
I once had to try and keep order at a board meeting during a shareholder revolt - when the CEO was getting paid HUGE bucks, yet flying the company (and therefore the shareholders' fortunes)into the ground. No violence, but the level of anger and screaming and cursing was amazing.
The CEO found himself unemployed shortly thereafter.
I'm a true conservative, and I think a LOT of executives are way overpaid. If I had a meeting with them, I'd tell them they were way overpaid.
If I was king of America, I would NOT sign a rule requiring them to be paid less.
Bush is NOT advocating the government do anything about pay inequity. But you don't have to be a liberal to denounce people getting paid for bad performance, or to point out that pay inequity can be bad for business because it can demoralize workers, making them less productive.
I say let the stockholders vote. They are the owners of the company.
Not just on what the board recommends either, but on what the actual amount should be.
"When people across the world look at America's economy, what they see is low inflation, low unemployment and the fastest growth of any major industrialized nation," he said. "There is one undisputed leader in the world in terms of economy, and that's the United States of America."
Gosh I wonder who provided that corporate leadership or did it happen by magic?
FDR wanted to limit salaries to $25,000. When someone asked Babe Ruth home come he was paid more money than President Hoover, he replied, "I had a better year."
Corporate execs get ego stroking salaries but how much does the government let them keep. Also, you might not like what they have to do to earn that money. It's not all skittles and beer.
OK who is this joker and what have they done with the real President Bush?
And that should be of concern to the government why, exactly?
Uh...right.
That's why he lowered the capital gains tax, huh?
"Dem platitudes " ??? NO -= A FACT OF LIFE
W is RIGHT again
"Some CEOs get paid waaaaay too much, even if they do bad work".
...obviously, from the looks of your tag line, you're an a$$ sucking, unemployed, Stalinist slacker that's obviously upset that ANYONE makes more than someone else. You don't understand economics because you went to publick skools and your parents were too busy listening to "Peter, Paul & Mary" and braiding each others hair to realize that they did the world a grave injustice by allowing a child to be born in the midst of such a lifestyle. Good try though!
'bye.
Yes, and Pres. Bush has called for more transparency for shareholders so they can be more informed.
The President has not called for any Gov't intervention legislatively yet many freepers are almost calling him Stalin over his comments.
For the President to go onto Spitzer's turn as a Repub and preempt one of Spitzer's issues by saying this...wise move IMO.
"Uh...right.
That's why he lowered the capital gains tax, huh?"
Let me guess...you're definition of "class warfare" means only perceived attacks on the rich, but not the other way around on the middle class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.