Comments on: You Tell Me: Pay Czar Cuts Salaries

By: Christa

Christa — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:04:44 +0000

Executive pay should be in line with performance and if cutting salaries is a move in that direction, I’m for it. Even if salaries are cut, my guess (without knowing all the details) is that bonuses and stock options will be there if they perform. Besides, it’s absolutely criminal that the banking and mortgage industry was so greedy that they got us in this mess. I wouldn’t care if the government legislated that all executives at all public companies could earn only a limited salary based on performance. Maybe I’m cynical but it seems like every time we turn around, there’s some other irresponsible and dishonest CEO. Take for example, Bruce Karatz, former CEO of KB Homes, one of the biggest homebuilders in California. He was just indicted in March on 20 counts of fraud and making false statements regarding backdating of stock options between 1999 and 2006 during which time he earned $232 million! So far, he’s been forced to return $20 million. What a joke! And, in the meantime people are now losing their homes left and right…

By: zegi

zegi — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:59:36 +0000

So far this year my pay has been cut 14%. That doesn’t count the frozen pension, discontinuation of 401k matching, and health benefit cost increases. And you know what? I count myself lucky to still have a job. If those who played out unnecessary and greedy risks are sad that they accepted money from the government and now they don’t get paid as much I don’t have any sympathy for them. Wah. Maybe they should think about being happy they still have jobs, too. And any bank that would hire them after their irresponsible actions probably needs to rethink their HR perspective.

By: Debt Elimination Don

Debt Elimination Don — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:28:18 +0000

Don’t confuse Wallstreet and the stock market with the economy – they are two different things. When you hear the talking heads on TV telling you that it’s another jobless recover take the time and think about it, is there really a recovery if no jobs are created?

How are people going to spend more unless as a whole they are making more?

If you don’t create jobs during an economic expansion (i.e. recovery), they those jobs are lost permanently.

An that leads to the understanding the current run up on the stock market is not driven by job growth and an expanding economy, it’s financially engineered through the creating of a “bubble.”

This time the bubble is being driven by the creation of government debt through the printing of money. Before that it was the personal creation of debt through artificially low interest rates.

By: Calvin from immediate debt relief

Calvin from immediate debt relief — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 15:43:02 +0000

thanks for the information great food for thought, its amazing how much we don’t want to account for?

By: Di

Di — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:47:27 +0000

I wanted to add to this..something I read this morning – and of course, Mitch Albom says it best: http://www.freep.com/article/2.....1001/rss01

By: Financial Samurai

Financial Samurai — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:21:51 +0000

I’m excited to see if the community actually realizes the pay cuts are just for the TOP 25 employees of these organizations.

Folks on Wall St. are going to get paid this year simply b/c revenue is back to 2007 levels, and there are 15% less people to pay.

The economy is back folks! Just like that, all is good in the world again. Unbelievable.

By: Debt Elimination Don

Debt Elimination Don — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:49:43 +0000

This is just the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules and right now it’s the US government making the rules.

These bankers would have been out of a job if they weren’t bailed out by the tax payers. Before they pay themselves bonuses, they should be paying us back first.

Don’t be too sure there are a whole lot of jobs for bankers out there. Over a 100 banks have failed so far this year and the number is rising. Many industries have taken a haircut lately, so now it’s the banking industries’ turn.

By: chris

chris — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:15:17 +0000

What is scary is that there are A LOT of people who CAN support it…and him.

By: MITBeta @ Don't Feed The Alligators

MITBeta @ Don't Feed The Alligators — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:13:38 +0000

1. Let’s not forget which administration initiated the bailouts in the first place. Hint: It wasn’t the present one…

2. Like it or not, the bailouts were needed. These under-regulated banks were allowed by previous administrations (plural) to get too big to fail — meaning that the failure of one would have systemic results. We should all be frothing at the mouth to see legislation put in place to make sure that single PRIVATE companies cannot put our entire financial system at risk. Where’s the outrage on that?

3. Most people here seem to be arguing about the bailouts in the first place. That’s a little bit like arguing about whether or not we should have reinforced the barn doors before the horses got out. The horses are out, so now what?

4. I agree with the others: I don’t want my tax dollars funding huge salaries for inept executives. My experience is that there’s not such a big difference between those who earn 6 or 7 (or 8!) figures and those who earn just 5. These execs are no more entitled to this kind of compensation in the first place than welfare moms are entitled the their handouts.

5. Erin said: “Obama has admitted that he’d like to restructure our Constitution–that it is inherently flawed and that our Founding Fathers didn’t know what they were doing.”

What? Can you please cite a source other than Faux News for this?

By: Frugal Dad

Frugal Dad — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:01:40 +0000

Allowing the government to penalize (tax) through reduced compensation members of a privately held entity that accepted government money is a slippery slope, in my opinion. What about defense contractors? They accept government money. What about any organization that receives a grant for research, or government subsidies. Is the Pay Czar going to start cutting salaries there, too?

My second issue is that an unelected, unconfirmed member of this administration has the authority to act alone in issuing such an edict. How did these czars get in their positions? Who pays their salary? How much do they earn? Do they have more or less power than cabinet-level appointees? These are the tough questions people (namely Congress) should be asking.