Forget legislation, etc. It’s in the interests of a company’s owners (the shareholders) to keep management from paying exorbitant bonuses that ultimately reduces their profits and makes them and the company look like greedy scumbags in this economy.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) was sued on Monday by a large union pension fund that accused the Wall Street investment bank of overpaying its executives.
The International Brotherhood of Electric Workers fund filed the lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court, seeking to recover money for the company on behalf of other shareholders.
It seeks to stop Goldman from allocating roughly 47 percent of 2009 net revenue as compensation, saying such allocations “vastly overcompensate management and constitute corporate waste.”
[…]
Goldman has been at the center of a public debate over how much banks should pay out in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, after taking billions of dollars of federal bailout money.Last week, Goldman said it would cap 2009 compensation expense at $16.2 billion, for a 36 percent compensation ratio, despite posting a record profit.
The bank also said its board rejected several shareholder demands to investigate recent pay awards and recoup excessive pay, while admitting it could face “negative publicity” from media portrayals.
WTF is wrong with people. Where in the world did you get the idea that it’s your business to “stop people from making money”.
You class warfare want to stop it, then buy the company and you can pay your CEO whatever you want.[
#2 it’s not about class warfare. If a bank is laying off 20% of it’s workforce while at the same time awarding it’s top executives bonuses that reach the double digit millions then there is something wrong with what is going on in that company.
You made a broad statement about “stopping people from making money.” I would say the argument is stop a few from making excessive amounts of money while those under them take pay cuts and loose their jobs.
#3, #2 is right. The only reason people are upset about high pay is their assumption that if executives are paid less, more people will be hired or everyone will make more. The reality is that a struggling business needs to find the best possible executives to right the ship. If you don’t want the entire business folding, then you will get the best to direct it. If salaries are capped, then these high-level executives will move to a more profitable industry or will be bribed with other benefits to stay.
If you want to make more, then make yourself worth more. Demanding that others make less will not benefit you. Personally, I want to know that my bank employs the best, and if that means high salaries, fantastic for them. I’ll worry about making myself valuable and get over the jealousy.
(And it’s “lose” jobs, not “loose” jobs)
>> Forget legislation, etc. It’s in the interests of a company’s owners (the shareholders) to keep management from paying exorbitant bonuses that ultimately reduces their profits
Uncle Dave has been listening to too many Ayn Randians.
Corporations aren’t calculated and rational based on profits. Neither are free markets.
Pull your head out of the Rand Sand and take a deep breath of economic reality. Corporations and markets are just groups of people… groups of people don’t act rationally.
Doesn’t anybody find strange that after all that happened last year there are still some people arguing in defense of the argument “but we need to pay top money to get and keep the best management talent” when reality has shown us that if that were true there would not have been so many shipwrecked companies last year? The simple truth is that top executives are overpaid and their stratospheric salaries are NOT tied in any way to performance unlike the rest of us mere mortals. Until that happens, the downward spiral of global economy will continue to drag us to the hurt locker of History…
Well, the normal idiots are here spouting their normal gibberish, so let me spout mine: RTFA!!
SHAREHOLDERS are suing to recover excessive compensation paid to Executives. The less paid to executives, the more the shareholders get and vice versa.
I very much doubt the shareholders are going to turn any corporate dividend increases they see over to the workers.
This is the Uber Rich Corporate Insiders fighting over money with the Uber Rich Corporate Owners.
Takes a special kind of hypocrisy/stupidity/religious thinking to think that someone earning 12 Million a year has to be paid 20 Million a year to get the best work out of him while increasing minimum wage violates the free market system.
Dolts.
#7: I would like to have them get no bonuses and then use the argument on them that I’ve gotten for not getting a raise in two years: feel lucky you have a job.
BTW, one of the arguments at one of the big banks for paying the bonuses was that it was in their contracts. What kind of incentive is it to be contractually obligated to get a bonus, especially when all you did was cash the government bailout check?
Ok, so G/S took a profit, during one of the worst financial crisis in US history they made a record profit (and perhaps caused the crisis in order to benefit from it). So it stands to reason their executives are the craftiest foxes in the hen house. Isn’t this why they’re paid the big bucks? Question is, is it convenient that the laws and regulations of this nation are constantly being tested by those that wish to work around them or avoid them all together? That’s the problem with laws, it’s easy to defend the letter and difficult to defend the spirit, and some clever guy is always looking for a loophole. Answer is, if all you got to counter greed and ambition are a set of laws and regulations, some clever bastid’s always gonna put one over on you.
Don’t get me wrong I still think it’s a great system, unfortunately society’s outgrown it. It was fine while we had great entrepreneurs and captains of industry, and society in general had better values. Now all we got are a bunch of Wisenhiemers trying to grab the quick and easy.
Oh and BTW, what neo-nazi pamphlet did you get that clipart from?
#10 @amodedoma, it’s the great system we’ve outgrown free enterprise and capitalism? If so, then what other system would you recommend that has taken a nation from poverty to wealth and power? I’d rather be poor in America than in Cuba, China, or Greece.
#11: It’s goldman-sachs, so using a picture of a hook-nosed guy in a yarmulke is totally appropriate. Why would you be opposed to a realistic portrayal?
#12 srgothard
Hey thanks, but I’m not THAT smart.
It’s not the system that takes people from poverty to wealth, it’s the way people apply that system. I can compare the places I’ve been to and tell you what works for them, I can tell you about nice places to live if you want to emigrate. But if you’d like to hang in there, get ready, cause instinctively I’d say the only way out is through and the 2nd american revolution is just around the bend.
#13 bogeyman
I have no reason to take offense, but, I do have some Jewish friends that might. If you don’t see anything wrong with negative cultural stereotypes there’s really nothing to be gained by my trying to explain it to you.
#11, etc.: Didn’t notice that part of it when I found the image. All I saw was a fat cat banker. Replaced.
Well, the shareholders telling the board of directors what to do is the way it’s supposed to be. They own the company and they hire the board to run it for them.
Oh, and mismanaged firms often manage to make tons of money (see microshaft) and vice versa. Good management is only one of the factors that dictates who gets the $$ and who doesn’t. Rather like elections….the ignorant stuffed shirt assholes often run nearly unopposed (LA Mayor) while dedicated public servants like Evan Bayh decide it isn’t worth it to bother anymore.
#15: the only problem i would ever have with a negative stereotype is if it was false or incorrectly applied. unfortunately the usurers in charge of AIG, G-S, the fed, etc. that are bankrupting this country fit the stereotype rather well.
#16 Uncle Dave: I see political correctness outweighs factual correctness yet again – not so “Uncensored” after all, eh?
#19, So, if I label you a piece of shit you won’t be offended because it’s factually correct, yet politically incorrect? Good to know.
#20: When you can’t refute the facts, resort to name calling. Game over; you lose.
#16 UD
I thought it was odd coming from you. Yeah, the Kippah wasn’t very clear in the drawing. I’d seen drawings like that before or I might not have noticed either.
#19 bogeyman
Racial slurs are worthy of censorship.
Good move changing the picture. It was probably taken from somewhere where it was meant to be racially offensive, although I’m sure Uncle Dave wasn’t using it here in that way on purpose.
Not too late to post that exec pay should BY LAW be a multiple of the average labor force pay. That way, the exec is motivated to raise wages, its easy to control, it can be set by the stockholders, and its “fair” from a big system viewpoint as opposed to being a product of self dealing and conspiracy as it is now.
Just for arguments sake, I heard last night that 40 years ago the average CEO made 30 times the average employee and now it is 300 with the Japanese paying something like 90 times. Looks like 91 times would be a reasonable staring point for the most successful corps in America?
Hah, hah. I was going to complain that editorial decisions were being overly influenced by racists teenagers posing as contributors, but I see the guy in the new caption also has a big nose.
You know why Bankers have big noses? Because the air is free! Skin head a few doors down told me that one. He should outgrow this phase in a few years.
two crazy things about these pay packets:
(1) when one of them is fired or quits, they are so easily replaced. Anyone making their kind of dough should be easily replaced.
(2) some of them are such geniouses they can take a 100 year old company and destroy in less than a year.
lets do some figuring..
How many years could you survive on 1 years pay from ANY of these folks?
10?
20?
SCREW IT, and retire at 18??
Life off the interest for 40 years??
So far I’d say the executives are winning against the shareholders and so-called “market forces.” Big time. And they’re not about to cut their own pay.
Got to RESTORE THE PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX !!! Elvin paid 91% in the “Glorius 50’s”, so should these CORPORATE SCUMBAGS !!!
fOR THOSE THAT THINK corps are the greatest..
You have to understand 1 main thing..
MOST of the corps are owned by a FEW persons.
They are diversification. Dividing up for a few reasons..
1, you have more then 1 company doing the same thing, so that you can show its NOT a monopoly.
2, you get more money from having more then 1 corp, as consumer looks and see’s 2-3-4 and a few differences, AND still picks one.
3. OWNERS dont run the company.
another trick comes with owning Multiple layers of companies..
1. sells high priced goods at HIGH prices..Then sells to the NEXT
2. Buys those goods not sold in ‘1, and sells at a middle price, then sells to the next..
3. Does the sames as 2, with goods FROM 2, at a lower price..
4..DITTO.
I will show you 1 thing.
the POOR dont wear much Cotton and wools, any more. WE WEAR PLASTIC. Why? ITS CHEAP.
The FUEL corps will also tell you, why they use petro products..ITS CHEAP.
Standard Product market NOW?? “ITS PRETTY I WANT IT”, it dont matter the product, as 90% of the market couldnt tell you What it is/was/or will do AFTEr you buy it.
Educate the consumer?? DONT BET ON IT. most couldnt tell you a RIPE fruit.
In the long run,
BUSINESS has had the gov lower Taxes, and to GET THEM BACK they have had to transfer the NEED of Gov Money to the consumer.
we are being PICKED CLEAN from both ends.
Profit margins go UP
PROFITS go up..
WAGES on the top WENT UP
ALL went up 100 times
What suffered was we LOST jobs..
WE lost HIGHER WAGES..
Lower wages havent Doubled in 20 years. MIN wage should be AT LEAST $12 per hour.
Those lost Taxes from corps and rich, are in property taxes, taxes on our wages, tax on everything we buy.
In WWII, taxes were raised for a reason..TO PAY FOR THE WAR..and it was on the RICH and corps, NOT on the poor.
It could only last so long.