If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Remember all those top executives who were going to flee bailed-out companies because of government limits on compensation?   (nytimes.com) divider line 50
    More: Obvious, compensation  
•       •       •

5309 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Mar 2010 at 5:22 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



50 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-03-23 12:25:12 PM
Color me not surprised at all.
 
2010-03-23 12:27:28 PM
Well duh, where were they going to go?
 
2010-03-23 12:35:43 PM
Why won't someone think of the poor Costa Ricans? WHY?

Denied Rush, now this? Those poor bastiches never get a break.
 
2010-03-23 01:09:10 PM
basemetal: Well duh, where were they going to go?

Galt?
 
2010-03-23 01:09:31 PM
Obvious tag needs to be put in storage for the same story regarding doctors a few years out.

"They are all going to quit!"

"Uh, facts show otherwise..."
 
2010-03-23 02:13:45 PM
Did they decide to stay, just like 99.999% of the people who said they'd flee to Canada if GWB was elected to a second term?
 
2010-03-23 02:17:52 PM
So you're saying the Republicans were wrong? Again?

Well, I am shocked.
 
2010-03-23 02:18:26 PM
Remind me again; why did we want to keep executives who were proven failures?
 
2010-03-23 02:28:02 PM
GMAC, the only company to receive three helpings of taxpayer aid, initially offered Mr. Carpenter a $9.5 million pay package. Mr. Feinberg rejected that, according to people close to the situation. Mr. Carpenter will now receive $8 million of so-called salary stock, which he cannot sell for at least three years.

Uh, yah. BIG paycut. Dumbasses.
 
2010-03-23 02:31:49 PM
Considering the paycuts never exsisted........
 
2010-03-23 02:38:45 PM
What is the opposite of "going Galt?"
 
2010-03-23 02:49:46 PM
Too bad. They are the ones who ran these companies into the ground. They should have fired their asses.
 
2010-03-23 02:52:05 PM
So the Republicans were grandstanding and making up shiat? GASP. I am just shocked.
 
2010-03-23 03:10:47 PM
St_Francis_P: Remind me again; why did we want to keep executives who were proven failures?

because..um....SOCIALISM!
 
2010-03-23 03:11:22 PM
sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

voting Republican.
 
2010-03-23 03:21:44 PM
St_Francis_P: Remind me again; why did we want to keep executives who were proven failures?

The free market forces companies too. After all, if they weren't worth it, they wouldn't have ironclad contracts worth millions, sometimes billions of dollars.
 
2010-03-23 03:25:29 PM
I guess there aren't that many job openings for greedy douchebags.
 
2010-03-23 03:30:11 PM
sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

Not living inside a delusion?
 
2010-03-23 03:53:04 PM
St_Francis_P: Remind me again; why did we want to keep executives who were proven failures?

Because they are titans of industry! Thinkers and idea-makers and geniuses every one of them! Just ask them, they'll tell you.
 
2010-03-23 05:07:20 PM
Too bad. We're thinking of replacing our office cleaning lady and I'm sure we could have trained an AIG executive to take over.
 
2010-03-23 05:31:06 PM
Shostie: Did they decide to stay, just like 99.999% of the people who said they'd flee to Canada if GWB was elected to a second term?

Do you have any idea how long the waiting list is to legally move to Canada?
 
2010-03-23 05:38:29 PM
Shostie: Did they decide to stay, just like 99.999% of the people who said they'd flee to Canada if GWB was elected to a second term?

Just like Rush said he was going to Costa Rica if the Dems passed healthcare?

Ouch... burn.
 
2010-03-23 05:50:51 PM
The Icelander: I guess there aren't that many job openings for greedy douchebags.

Yeah, elections are only in November.
 
2010-03-23 05:51:44 PM
85% of executives in those companies stayed...

So... what is the percentage of executives who stayed at (comparable) companies who didn't receive bailout money, and who therefore did not get a pay cut?

If 99% of them didn't jump to somewhere else, than it seems like 85% is a significant change.
 
2010-03-23 05:53:20 PM
sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

"Staying Pat"

/*rimshot*
 
2010-03-23 05:54:41 PM
They just don't want the stock they can't sell, as it requires them to *gasp* MAKE THEIR COMPANY SUCESSFUL instead of RAPING it into oblivion
 
2010-03-23 06:23:34 PM
sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

Coming Galt.

/yuck
 
2010-03-23 06:26:50 PM
sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

Holding it in.
 
2010-03-23 06:38:23 PM
sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

Being sane?
 
2010-03-23 06:47:34 PM
Ashelth: Shostie: Did they decide to stay, just like 99.999% of the people who said they'd flee to Canada if GWB was elected to a second term?

Do you have any idea how long the waiting list is to legally move to Canada?


Oh, I know. It's rather sobering to make a threat and find out just how empty it is.
justtray: Shostie: Did they decide to stay, just like 99.999% of the people who said they'd flee to Canada if GWB was elected to a second term?

Just like Rush said he was going to Costa Rica if the Dems passed healthcare?

Ouch... burn.


That's pretty much the pinnacle of empty threats, yes.
 
2010-03-23 06:53:29 PM
Stop stealing my money!
 
2010-03-23 07:07:42 PM
basemetal: Well duh, where were they going to go?

Full retard^WPalin?
 
2010-03-23 07:33:06 PM
Another group of conservative windbags.

Man, you cons are just being exposed all over the place as a bunch of loud talking do nothing pansies, ain't ya?
 
2010-03-23 07:48:36 PM
sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

Being a self-important douche who then turns into a whiney, butthurt pussy that trolls Fark's politics tab?
 
2010-03-23 08:17:08 PM
basemetal: Well duh, where were they going to go?

Wild guess and I could be wrong, but here's a theory:

They're staying because the market is weak yes, but when the market becomes less weak they will form their own banks and **gasp** compete with the older, now proven fallible, banks. They were given excessive salaries to prevent this. It's easier to pay insane salaries to top execs than compete with those top execs at newer (and now less blemished) companies.

Wouldn't this outcome be a good thing and doesn't it seem rational?

Again, I might well be talking out my ass here.
 
2010-03-23 09:12:32 PM
Remember all those top executives who were going to flee bailed-out companies because of government limits on compensation?

Yep, nobody else wanted to pay their exorbitant salaries either.
 
2010-03-23 09:51:48 PM
"The relative stability, at least within the executive suite, suggests that a soft job market, corporate loyalty and personal pride helped deter the feared management exodus at the companies hardest hit by the pay rules."

FTFY, New York Times
 
2010-03-23 10:23:40 PM
Ace Frehley's Ghost: Yep, nobody else wanted to pay their exorbitant salaries either.

But only because the government imposed a cap on the market! Gross incompetence couldn't possibly have been a factor.
 
2010-03-23 11:28:40 PM
maybe they just REALLY liked where they are...

known evils and all that.

/nah, for some reason I don't think they could get a good reference.
 
2010-03-24 01:19:49 AM
This just tickles me, this article.

I remember always reading, that the executives had to be paid those ridiculous salaries, because of the so called talent they had and would bolt to another company.

Every single article about justifying those salaries, used that same exact excuse. Go back and read, every single blood sucking time.

And the funny part, people would actually support this excuse on Fark. Silly people.

/same excuse!!
 
2010-03-24 02:18:56 AM
justtray: Shostie: Did they decide to stay, just like 99.999% of the people who said they'd flee to Canada if GWB was elected to a second term?

Just like Rush said he was going to Costa Rica if the Dems passed healthcare?

Ouch... burn.


good thing you can get insurance to pay for the trip to the burn clinic
 
2010-03-24 02:28:28 AM
Uncle Pim: sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

Being a self-important douche who then turns into a whiney, butthurt pussy that trolls Fark's politics tab?


No, no, opposite.
 
2010-03-24 08:50:17 AM
basemetal: Well duh, where were they going to go?

Well exec A goes to company 2, with a pay raise, exec B goes to company 3, with a pay raise, and exec C goes to company 1, with a pay raise. All because exec A's daddy plays golf with company 2s board, exec B once got the board of directors of company 3 out of some child traffic charges in Thia land, and exec Cs daddy allowed a few of the members of board 1 to bugger exec C as a kid.

See the whole corporate game at that level is about favors, paybacks, and sucking cock.
 
2010-03-24 08:50:46 AM
www.cs.uni.edu

"I GOT NO WHERE ELSE TO GO!!"

/Pic as hot as that movie is bad.
 
2010-03-24 09:06:05 AM
basemetal: Well duh, where were they going to go?

This.

I don't get how such epic failures instantly jump to other CEO jobs.
 
2010-03-24 09:42:33 AM
ProdigalSigh: They're staying because the market is weak yes, but when the market becomes less weak they will form their own banks and **gasp** compete with the older, now proven fallible, banks.

EL OH EL. You need foresight farther than next quarter to start a business like a bank. These are the same people who though so short term that they sank institutions that everyone thought were invincible.
 
2010-03-24 11:09:58 AM
I've been trying to get my day job to pay me to leave, as companies tend to do with underperforming CEOs.

So far Farking all day isn't working. Gotta try some new strategies.

A co-worker did volunteer to chip in $5... hmmm...
 
2010-03-24 02:55:56 PM
James F. Campbell: Uncle Pim: sigdiamond2000: What is the opposite of "going Galt?"

Being a self-important douche who then turns into a whiney, butthurt pussy that trolls Fark's politics tab?

No, no, opposite.


Whoops, sorry. My mistake.
 
2010-03-24 03:30:37 PM
I'm just gonna take a wiiild farking guess here, but the 15% who left were probably the best 15% who could actually earn what they previously made. (You know talented people that worked hard, and got results?) So now it is left with the average 85% whose mediocrity is responsible for the mess they're in and those people are lucky to be making what they are even with the pay cut (even to have a farking job).

It's called the pareto principle. 20% of the input is responsible for 80% of the output. I'll leave you guys and your massive intellects to piece the rest together.

/I created a fark account just to post this.
//Can't believe no one else said this.
///You're all farkin liberals so actually it doesn't surprise me.
 
2010-03-24 08:39:51 PM
GowenNowhere: It's called the pareto principle.

There may also be a link to Gresham's Law.
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report