Top employees leave financial firms ahead of pay cuts

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by jojajn

Would the more "difficult method" have included no bonuses or a cut in pay?

Very possibly yes, several CEO's have cut their pay to $1 until the companies turn around, or have switched back to the previously accept pay methods for CEOs (stock options). It only moved from options to pay after the public thre a fit because some stocks skyrocketed leaving CEO's holding hundreds of millions (former CEO of Heinz for example)..

They also could have negotiaed new bond issuances, or stock offerings, or even declared reorganizational bankruptcy to get along until the economy turn around.

In fact, it can be argued that the government bailouts were more harmful than helpful, GM a prime example, by just prolonging the agony that bankruptcy was needed from day one..

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Everyone is replaceable, but if you think the founder of AIG can be replaced by some government manager and still have the same emotion and drive to keep the company going, you are only kidding yourself.

You're getting it, albeit slowly. Yes, they're replaceable. Who they are replaced with, why does it matter? They, as you said, ARE replaceable.

As I claimed I was replaceable. Btw, they replaced me with someone who earned 2 1/2 times what I made, which counters your argument.

If true, this would add to my long list of foolish decisions management makes while running companies. It kinda reminds me of an issue I've dealt with as a project manager (with a large telecom company). Programmers in IT department have been found replaceable in India (and several times over since they cost about 20-25% of what they would here). To train them, the management initially sent those who would be replaced, to India. They would go, and train 15-20 programmers for a week or two, return and be gone.

Then something occurred to the management. They decided, it was better to bring couple of programmers from India, get them trained here, and then they go and train others. Not sure if you understand an underlying issue, but not only is it less efficient to train TWICE (the training period almost doubles), it is also more expensive to bring 2-3 people and pay for their expenses here than it is to send one person there and pay for expenses in Indian rupees. But hey, I don't have as much experience as those making the decisions... they are genius after all, aren't they?

You really think the pays of a CEO affect the health of the nation? Really? Thats your defense? Tell me how paying a CEO $10M is unhealthy.

You were laid off, weren't you? How much were YOU making?

When Obama bought into these companies, was that a part of the negotiations, or are they now retroactivly trying to change the terms of their equity buyout? I already know the answer, but maybe you need to answer it.

With no details, legal or otherwise at hand, I don't have the answer, and don't care either. If it bothers these guys you speak for, it is THERE problem to handle and challenge.

It wasnt I that said college kids, maybe you need to review the thread again.

But you assumed they could be the only ones to replace. In fact, I believe some actually might be more qualified than those squeezing every drop of blood from the businesses they're supposed to manage.

[Who?Me?!]

Originally Posted by pghquest

And here goes the typical left wing abserd posting that does not contribute to the topic at all...

The word is spelled "absurd" and yes, my post nails the repubs and their attitude towards, and fear of, the WealthyOnes. That is why average Americans can be repeatedly raped by the Wealthy...they have so many loyal minions who support them out of sheer ignorance.

[Old Gringo]

A lot of these creeps should probably leave those firms to serve jail sentences.

[AeroGuyDC]

Originally Posted by summers73

Look, people who think in their own mind they're conservative should realize that you're fighting a losing battle with this thread. Real conservatives and liberals actually stand together on this issue, albeit for different reasons perhaps. If you're going to pick on Obama, do so for more salient reasons like public option in health care and not simply for the sake of picking on him.

Why don't you define for us what a "real conservative" is? I've seen you provide plenty of rhetoric regarding who on this forum you think is a real conservative, but i've yet to see anything remotely related to the definition that you're using to make that determination. Enlighten us.