Brilliant troll or blinding arrogance? YOU decide! [Archive]

Sheogorath

02-21-2009, 05:59

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html

I sure cant figure it out.

For those too lazy, this article is basically a touching account of how the poor executives couldn't POSSIBLY live on 500,000 dollars per year.

Essentially any possible iota of sympathy I may have had evaporated completely by the third sentence.

A couple highlights:

Many top executives have cars and drivers. A chauffeur’s pay is between $75,000 and $125,000 a year, the higher end for former police officers who can double as bodyguards, said a limousine driver who spoke anonymously because he does not want to alienate his society customers.

I dunno...maybe...get your own car?

But, of course, that would mean going to the MVD/DMV. Just think! You might have to talk to a poor person who isn't on your payroll! They might give you a disease! Can you catch poorness? :annoyedg:

The work in the gym pays off when one must don a formal gown for a charity gala. “Going to those parties,” said David Patrick Columbia, who is the editor of the New York Social Diary (newyorksocialdiary.com), “a woman can spend $10,000 or $15,000 on a dress. If she goes to three or four of those a year, she’s not going to wear the same dress.”

Total cost for three gowns: about $35,000.

I dont even know what to say.
If you spent more on dresses than many in this country make in a year, MAYBE you should rethink your lifestyle and, MAYBE, just maybe, consider wearing a dress more than once.

Stuff like this makes me want to fly to Moscow and revive Lenin.

Devastatin Dave

02-21-2009, 06:17

Stuff like this makes me want to fly to Moscow and revive Lenin.

Go ahead. Why should they NOT make the money they do? Why do baseball players get paid millions? Why do doctors get paid what they do? Why do Senators recieve 100 % pensions for the rest of their lives?

Socialism only works till you run out of other people's money.

rasoforos

02-21-2009, 06:39

I think we are talking two different things here.

In a free market supply and demand (in theory) adjust the prices and the wages. There is nothing wrong with a huge wage if it is worth it.

If I may use your example Dave old chap. Good Baseball players are in short supply and a team can have a positive return to their investment even if they pay one millions.

The problem lies where supply and demand do not work. It is a principal-agent problem. These executives, despite doing a very bad job can still entitle themselves with sizable bonuses. They take advantage the fact that instead of having just one boss (as in a small company) they have thousands of relatively powerless shareholders. Since their wages are mostly set by other agents, they are sort of kept on the elite, despite the woes of the economy.

Nothing wrong with them getting a lot of money when they do a good job but what aggravates most people is a) bonuses b) unnecessary expenses (company owned jets).

Also it is about people's expectations. Most multinationals will not even feel any direct financial benefit if their execs get a lets say 50% voluntary wage deduction. But the move will be appreciated by the lower ranking employees and will pass a message to banks and creditors that this corporation really wants to try and survive the crisis. Consequently morale will be higher and credit will be easier to find.

To Sheogorath:

Try to revive Trotsky instead of Lenin. :2thumbsup: Lenin and Stalin made a militant mockery out of the socialist system.

Sheogorath

02-21-2009, 06:46

Go ahead. Why should they NOT make the money they do? Why do baseball players get paid millions? Why do doctors get paid what they do? Why do Senators recieve 100 % pensions for the rest of their lives?

Socialism only works till you run out of other people's money.

You're misreading my argument.

I'm not arguing for socialism. In fact, I generally think that any sort of 'pure' economic system (socialist or capitalist) is essentially non-workable in todays world. You have to make do with a range. Just like the Chinese can call themselves a communist country all they want, when they're probably more capitalist than the US.

But that's another thread entirely.

Now, what I'm saying is that whoever wrote this article needs a major dose of perspective if they think it's impossible to live comfortably in New York for less than 500,000 dollars a year. Lots of people do it. In fact, I believe most of the population of the United States, nay, the world, manages to live a perfectly healthy and enjoyable life without a chauffeur or three/four 15,000 dollar dresses a year.

I sure do.

Now, certainly, if the people in question were being paid with their own companies money, I would be fine with them getting paid however much they want. It's their company, and they can run it into the ground if they like.

But, at this point in time, they're on the payroll of the US taxpayer. Which means that, unless they're going to give me a million dollar bonus every year, there needs to be some sanity in their paychecks.

And please dont give me the argument that they're not using taxpayer money for their bonuses. If anybody believes they have two separate piles of money in their bank accounts those individuals need a hairpin to the base of the spine. :hairpin1:

EDIT:
Rasoforos,

There's also the small matter that the current system essentially rewards incompetence. You run your company down, get fired, get a nice severance package, then your friend over at JoeCorp hires you...and it starts all over again.
Essentially, it's the 'good ol' boys club' of the business world. It's a great deal for those that are already in.

But, conspiracy theories aside, my point is, as I said above, that some people are seriously lacking in any kind of perspective. The article talks about these things like they're ESSENTIAL to life itself.

I'm thinking maybe requiring everybody with a salary of over $500,000 to live on a $50,000 budget ever other year would be a good idea. But that would be difficult to impliment :P

Productivity

02-21-2009, 11:53

b) unnecessary expenses (company owned jets).

What if it can be demonstrated that a corporate jet is economically efficient?

Husar

02-21-2009, 13:28

Go ahead. Why should they NOT make the money they do?
Maybe because they are paid for taking responsibility and none of them have been held responsible yet?
You know, in capitalism you only get paid for your performance, if there is no performance/achievement, then there is no money, deal with it or go to a socialist country.

Why do baseball players get paid millions?
Because they have to come up to really high standards and millions of viewers like to watch the commercial breaks.

Why do doctors get paid what they do?
From what I know they don't get paid all that much, at least here, some really good ones maybe but then peoples' lives are worth a lot to people so they're willing to spend a lot to keep them nice and long.

Why do Senators recieve 100 % pensions for the rest of their lives?
That sort of thing always baffled me, just like some politicians get paid tens of thousands for holding a speech, but hey, if people want to pay for hearing that gibberish...

Socialism only works till you run out of other people's money.
Obviously, so does Capitalism. :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

02-21-2009, 18:32

I dunno...maybe...get your own car?

But, of course, that would mean going to the MVD/DMV. Just think! You might have to talk to a poor person who isn't on your payroll! They might give you a disease! Can you catch poorness? :annoyedg:

I'm pretty sure almost no poor people have cars in New York City.

CR

Husar

02-21-2009, 19:19

Why would anyone need cars when there is a working subway system? :inquisitive:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-21-2009, 20:00

Why would anyone need cars when there is a working subway system? :inquisitive:

Beats me, I've always used the U-Bahn/S-Bahn. Damn near impossible to park a car in the Altstadt (well, not impossible, but to me it is by no means worth the hassle).

EDIT: On the other hand, if you do outside travel, to other towns...that's essentially what I use the car for.

Sheogorath

02-21-2009, 20:20

I'm pretty sure almost no poor people have cars in New York City.

CR

Do cab drivers qualify?

And, I think, you need to adjust your definition of 'poor' to match that of a person who can afford to blow 15,000 bucks on a one-time-use dress.

Why would anyone need cars when there is a working subway system? :inquisitive:

Although, I do have to admit, I would be willing to spend a good bit of cash to avoid New York's subways :tongueg:

rory_20_uk

02-22-2009, 15:58

Why do doctors get paid what they do?

I'm on less than the Chauffeur.

~:smoking:

Sheogorath

02-22-2009, 21:05

I'm on less than the Chauffeur.

~:smoking:

But more than the dresses? :tongueg:

Seriously though, is there ANYBODY here who can think of a single justifiable reason to spend 15,000 bucks on something you're going to use ONCE which ISN'T some sort of explosive?

I mean, you could feed a town in Africa for a year on that much. You could hire your own PRIVATE ARMY. Or plant some trees. Or buy a car. You could get a damn nice car used for $15,000. I saw a VW camper on sale for $2,000 earlier. I bet if you shopped around you could blow the remaining $13,000 on hiring somebody to turn it into the most awesome 1970's pimpmobile ever. Plus, once the FBI finally catches onto your tax evasion and seizes all your other assets, you could live in it.

Actually, living in a VW camper really isn't that bad, provided you dont mind sleeping in a hammock or in a fetal position on the worlds tiniest bed. They're just like really small apartments. I lived in one with a friend for a week. It had satellite TV and a little mini stove. True, we had to use a bucket for a bathroom when public facilities weren't available, but, as he puts it, this is an excellent way to keep The Man from knowing where you are.

He's kind of crazy, in a pleasant sort of way.

Anyway,

I think the government needs to appoint an official in charge of slapping people for being stupid. It'd be a better use of the bailout money than some of the stuff that was in there.
Like the $20 billion going to Puerto Rico. :blankg:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-22-2009, 22:07

Seriously though, is there ANYBODY here who can think of a single justifiable reason to spend 15,000 bucks on something you're going to use ONCE which ISN'T some sort of explosive?

I mean, you could feed a town in Africa for a year on that much. You could hire your own PRIVATE ARMY. Or plant some trees. Or buy a car. You could get a damn nice car used for $15,000. I saw a VW camper on sale for $2,000 earlier. I bet if you shopped around you could blow the remaining $13,000 on hiring somebody to turn it into the most awesome 1970's pimpmobile ever. Plus, once the FBI finally catches onto your tax evasion and seizes all your other assets, you could live in it.

If your private army isn't very good then you can only use it once...

Sheogorath

02-22-2009, 22:09

If your private army isn't very good then you can only use it once...

Ah, but years of Total War will allow me to employ my private army in such a manner that it gets lots of use for minimal cost :gring:

Devastatin Dave

02-24-2009, 04:59

But more than the dresses? :tongueg:

Seriously though, is there ANYBODY here who can think of a single justifiable reason to spend 15,000 bucks on something you're going to use ONCE which ISN'T some sort of explosive?

I mean, you could feed a town in Africa for a year on that much. You could hire your own PRIVATE ARMY. Or plant some trees. Or buy a car. You could get a damn nice car used for $15,000. I saw a VW camper on sale for $2,000 earlier. I bet if you shopped around you could blow the remaining $13,000 on hiring somebody to turn it into the most awesome 1970's pimpmobile ever. Plus, once the FBI finally catches onto your tax evasion and seizes all your other assets, you could live in it.

Actually, living in a VW camper really isn't that bad, provided you dont mind sleeping in a hammock or in a fetal position on the worlds tiniest bed. They're just like really small apartments. I lived in one with a friend for a week. It had satellite TV and a little mini stove. True, we had to use a bucket for a bathroom when public facilities weren't available, but, as he puts it, this is an excellent way to keep The Man from knowing where you are.

He's kind of crazy, in a pleasant sort of way.

Anyway,

I think the government needs to appoint an official in charge of slapping people for being stupid. It'd be a better use of the bailout money than some of the stuff that was in there.
Like the $20 billion going to Puerto Rico. :blankg:

Freedom's a :daisy:. The nerve of some people doing what they choose to do with the money they earned. :wall:

Fragony

02-24-2009, 07:32

500.000 is way too low a wage for a top executive, you don't just hire the man, you also hire his contacts. Top executive needs to be in the top tier of networks.

Husar

02-24-2009, 13:23

Freedom's a :daisy:. The nerve of some people doing what they choose to do with the money they earned. :wall:
I've got no real problem with that if they actually earn it and also come up to the responsibility they earn it for, if they don't, then they don't really earn it.
You know, when I get paid to stand behind a cash register and receive payments and I keep having a minus of 500$ or € at the end of every shift that cannot be traced anywhere, then I'll get fired, when such guys get paid because they're responsible for a whole company with lots of workers etc. and the company goes bankrupt, then they get 20 million to leave...and now they even get a tax payer bailout from the same taxpayers who can only dream of something like a bailout and they complain that they cannot keep up their expensive lifestyle.
Well, I can only tell them what they use to tell the small guys: Deal with it!

500.000 is way too low a wage for a top executive, you don't just hire the man, you also hire his contacts. Top executive needs to be in the top tier of networks.

Ah, so his contacts are all unemployed and need bribes from his private bank account to survive?

Fragony

02-24-2009, 15:14

Ah, so his contacts are all unemployed and need bribes from his private bank account to survive?

What I mean is that you just don't hire the executive, you also hire the network he has built up over the years. These guys are good at what they do because they know people. To know people you must be able to afford a certain lifestyle.

Husar

02-24-2009, 16:17

So basically managers are the modern aristocracy?

Whether it benefits me or not, but if you have to "buy" your friends with bling bling in these circles I find that rather disgusting and shallow. Well, that could be why I'm not a manager but I hear in California managers wear T-Shirts and it doesn't look like they're doing any better or worse than other managers.
The rest is just about these circles thinking they're somehow better and have to show it to the rest of the world. I don't have a lot of sympathy for that.
Nothing wrong with having some bling bling if you earn it, but right now they apparently do not earn it, yet whine that they want it. :dizzy2:

FactionHeir

02-24-2009, 16:30

I was thinking, what if there was some law that no one person can earn more than the chief of state (for instance the POTUS earns 500k a year). That includes people in entertainment and sports as well. Any excess either goes to charity or back to invest into the company and its workers and shareholders. It would be illegal to channel the excess to acquaintances/money laundering schemes.

Would that make the world any better or what would the consequences be?

Fragony

02-24-2009, 16:36

The rest is just about these circles thinking they're somehow better and have to show it to the rest of the world. I don't have a lot of sympathy for that.

That's your take. But these people work over 80 hours a week and have no time for time with their family, pick your poverty.

LittleGrizzly

02-24-2009, 19:57

Would that make the world any better or what would the consequences be?

It would very likely have to be a world decision otherwise there could be a lot of movement to countries that don't have restrictions... i don't imagine the board would have too much problem sorting that out...

Would this include the self employed or not ?

If not, many people would magically become self employed whilst still doing exactly the same job for exactly the same company...

If it is wordwide and includes the self employed.... the world would be hell of a better place!

Hard to pay off your candidate if you don't have that much excess money
Vast improvments in standard of living for the lowest members of society... a drop in crime to match....
Alot of world problems sorted out (assuming the money is used well) imagine trying to convince some muslim with a nice house 2 cars and a college fund for the kids to go blow himself up... its going to be a hell of alot harder than some dirt poor kid living on the street...

and lots of others... im not sure if 1/2 mill is to low though... some people who get more do deserve thier salaries... so you could have some negative sides as well, the top business men, scientists ect. don't need to work hard to be worth thier 1/2 m, you could have a situation where the top minds only work part time (because thier still worth 1/2 m part time)

Sheogorath

02-24-2009, 20:13

What I mean is that you just don't hire the executive, you also hire the network he has built up over the years. These guys are good at what they do because they know people. To know people you must be able to afford a certain lifestyle.

Oh, you mean his buddies, who I already mentioned, who will hire him once he gets fired along with his nice severance package?

Because, obviously, our current set of executives are brilliant and have only the best interests of the country in mind, what with the billions of dollars which are basically just vanishing. Really great guys.

Oh yeah and emptying the company vaults right before they jump ship. (http://consumerist.com/5151444/ny-ag-before-losing-15-billion-merrill-lynch-quietly-made-696-employees-millionaires)

Yeah. Real great guys.

You know? I think I'll take the low-rent incompetents over the high-rent ones.

Look at it from a business standpoint.

You have two idiots. You must hire one to run your company. One wants $500,000 a year, the other, $50 million. They will both perform exactly the same, but the second idiot is friends with a bunch of other idiots.

OK, perhaps 'idiots' is too strong a term. I'm sure some of them are quite smart. After all, they've managed to pull off the biggest heist in the history of mankind and gotten away with it, despite the fact that it was public knowledge. They even got the government to help them.

I'm a college student. I know people. Quite a few people. I met Lec Walesa once. Is he a people?

King Henry V

02-24-2009, 20:47

Sasaki Kojiro

02-24-2009, 20:49

Freedom's a :daisy:. The nerve of some people doing what they choose to do with the money they earned. :wall:

hahah, what do you say about those union workers making 90,000 a year now Dave?

Husar

02-24-2009, 22:51

That's your take. But these people work over 80 hours a week and have no time for time with their family, pick your poverty.

Well, yes, their choice, and I'm sure some of those 80 hours a week involve really nice food, using their private jet etc. and the fact that they don't spend time with their families isn't really great either, we have a member here who had a dad like that and wasn't really amused. Everything in moderation.
But that doesn't really work when business in general is completely bent on squeezing every possible cent out of every process etc etc.

Fragony

02-25-2009, 02:29

The point is that they are not good at what they do, if not we wouldn't be in this situation.

Global market crash, these things happen, sky isn't falling down.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-25-2009, 02:42

The problem isn't with the executives getting the salaries they do, the problem lies with the poor choices in contract letting that the firms in question make. This holds for baseball as well. Too often the standard is to compensate atheletes/executives based on what they HAVE done, not on what they are doing.

Performance incentives -- and penalties for poor performance -- would make for a more equitable contract. If the sucker earns more for the shareholders, ka-ching. If he drops the value of the stock by 60% when the rest of the market drops 30%, then we're talking a STEEP decline in earnings that quarter. You went 14 for 30 with 6 dingers? KA-ching! You went 0-54 with runners in scoring position? Hope you put a good bit down on that Escalade.

Sheogorath

02-25-2009, 04:38

Global market crash, these things happen, sky isn't falling down.

Except that this time we know who caused it. And, you know, it's the same people who are asking us for money.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-25-2009, 04:44

Except that this time we know who caused it. And, you know, it's the same people who are asking us for money.

How charming that you still think they're asking....

Fragony

02-25-2009, 04:56

Except that this time we know who caused it. And, you know, it's the same people who are asking us for money.

Yeah Carter but most of all Clinton, forcing banks to lend money to people who can't afford it great thinking, good times on the sales department I am sure, they must have had a good laugh over that one. If you are dealing with lions don't wear a steak-suit.

Ironside

02-25-2009, 08:11

aimlesswanderer

02-25-2009, 09:16

Yeah Carter but most of all Clinton, forcing banks to lend money to people who can't afford it great thinking, good times on the sales department I am sure, they must have had a good laugh over that one. If you are dealing with lions don't wear a steak-suit.

I thought that the way too low interest rates in response to Sept 11 triggered lending to anyone still breathing, with dodgy terms hiking rates alarmingly after a little while. Meanwhile the govt and regulatory agencies twiddled their thumbs, leading to the massive scandals (Madoff etc) coming to light after the crud hit the fan.

In Aust executive renumeration isn't as extreme as in the US, but there are still plenty of examples of executives getting massive payouts after botching the job big time. Nothing like richly rewarding failure, that is what most people have the biggest problem with.

Companies need to more carefully consider how to structure renumeration, making the incentives less short term, and with smaller golden parachutes. Also not ignoring shareholder anger over golden parachutes to failed executives would be good.

Fragony

02-25-2009, 10:07

I thought that the way too low interest rates in response to Sept 11 triggered lending to anyone still breathing

Nope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Fisherking

02-25-2009, 10:36

I don’t agree with the Government setting salaries for Privet Companies but the article is full of :daisy:

The author is saying that the poor privileged class will go broke on only half a million per year.

$32,000 per year per student for privet schools…

Huge mortgages and fees for exclusive dwellings. Serving staff…

Oh yea! I can sympathize, poor babies…Only half a million a year they may have to move to New Jersey and commute.

While I don’t agree that Government set pay rates for privet companies, I don’t think the American people should pay executive bonuses to firms which nearly went under…I think they should be prosecuted for fraud…