Hey, Busyman...

[Busyman™]

I wasn't bemused by the spelling so much as the implication that you thought G.Gekko was even partially acceptable.

sighhhh...
It was within the context of the paragraph.

Bemusement or unacceptability? Whatever.

[j2k4]

Back OT...

Actually, the matter of compensation and it's justification is not properly served by comparisons, and, much as I like Walter Williams, I would (rather) challenge those who take issue with the concept of "astronomic" compensation.

As the example, go ahead and use Jack Welch, ignoring any comparisons.

Granting that there are definitely CEOs and boards who game the system (and who warrant our abhorence), there are others who do not.

What about them?

[ilw]

i have 2 problems with the situation at present, the first clocker has pointed out (i.e. that if they're getting massive recompense they should accept a fair amount of risk to incentivise them) and the second is that at the top level of a company the people are setting their own wages (or near enough), so you get a back-scratching situation extraordinaire. The same thing happens wth politicians if the media aren't scrutinising, they'll just vote each other raises and expense accounts.

[Busyman™]

i have 2 problems with the situation at present, the first clocker has pointed out (i.e. that if they're getting massive recompense they should accept a fair amount of risk to incentivise them) and the second is that at the top level of a company the people are setting their own wages (or near enough), so you get a back-scratching situation extraordinaire. The same thing happens wth politicians if the media aren't scrutinising, they'll just vote each other raises and expense accounts.

What do you propose be done about it?

Do you think government should get involved?

What clocker said is not new. There are companies that have "wised up".

This was due to shareholders yelling foul since they are directly getting burned if superstar CEO is ultimately Boo-Boo The Fool....and they still have to pay him/her.

[ilw]

i have 2 problems with the situation at present, the first clocker has pointed out (i.e. that if they're getting massive recompense they should accept a fair amount of risk to incentivise them) and the second is that at the top level of a company the people are setting their own wages (or near enough), so you get a back-scratching situation extraordinaire. The same thing happens wth politicians if the media aren't scrutinising, they'll just vote each other raises and expense accounts.

What do you propose be done about it?

Do you think government should get involved?

What clocker said is not new. There are companies that have "wised up".

This was due to shareholders yelling foul since they are directly getting burned if superstar CEO is ultimately Boo-Boo The Fool....and they still have to pay him/her.

I think it would be a pain in the arse to legislate, so i would threaten legislation unless they set up some sort of self regulation or voluntary code. It would likely be a bit shit, but should be better than nowt. Ultimately it should be up to the shareholders to perform the scrutiny, but I don't really have a problem with government intervention for the greater good

[Busyman™]

What do you propose be done about it?

Do you think government should get involved?

What clocker said is not new. There are companies that have "wised up".

This was due to shareholders yelling foul since they are directly getting burned if superstar CEO is ultimately Boo-Boo The Fool....and they still have to pay him/her.

I think it would be a pain in the arse to legislate, so i would threaten legislation unless they set up some sort of self regulation or voluntary code. It would likely be a bit shit, but should be better than nowt. Ultimately it should be up to the shareholders to perform the scrutiny, but I don't really have a problem with government intervention for the greater good

I'm at a loss as to what the government is supposed to be regulating?

Are you actually saying that government should regulating the actual pay of the head's of companies?

There is already regulation of certain things like stock options and such. People have been caught in back-dating scandals already.

I'm just at a loss as to what the government is to do. Are they to approve salaries and bonuses? Are we communist now?

"No, no, no. That's too much. Lower it by half a mil, lower the stock options by 50%, and make his severence package .2% of the company's net worth upon him leaving....and you can hire Superstar CEO."

The fook?

[j2k4]

I think it would be a pain in the arse to legislate, so i would threaten legislation unless they set up some sort of self regulation or voluntary code. It would likely be a bit shit, but should be better than nowt. Ultimately it should be up to the shareholders to perform the scrutiny, but I don't really have a problem with government intervention for the greater good

I'm at a loss as to what the government is supposed to be regulating?

Are you actually saying that government should regulating the actual pay of the head's of companies?

There is already regulation of certain things like stock options and such. People have been caught in back-dating scandals already.

I'm just at a loss as to what the government is to do. Are they to approve salaries and bonuses? Are we communist now?

"No, no, no. That's too much. Lower it by half a mil, lower the stock options by 50%, and make his severence package .2% of the company's net worth upon him leaving....and you can hire Superstar CEO."

The fook?

Well done; saves me saying it.

Fact is, the lid has come off a lot of this stuff, and a wee bit of public disapproval goes a long way, though the incestuous aspect continues to nettle.

The media can ably fill the info-gap (especially given their distaste for big business), and keep public outrage simmering; one wishes they'd learn how to train their sights on liberal politicians, who seem to be wearing some sort of media camouflage.

Government involvement would be an unmitigated disaster.