Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-plans-big-pay-cuts-at-US-apf-22499205.html?x=0&.v=1

US plans big pay cuts at US bailout firms
AP source: Administration to order big pay cuts for top US executives at bailout companies

By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
On 3:36 pm EDT, Wednesday October 21, 2009
Buzz up! 4 Print
Companies:Bank Of America CorporationCitigroup, Inc.Motors Liquidation Company
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration plans to order companies that received huge U.S. government bailouts last year to sharply cut the compensation of their highest paid executives.

A person familiar with the decision, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it has not been announced, says the seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 highest-paid executives by an average of about 90 percent from last year.

This person says the Treasury Department will announce the deep pay cuts within the next few days.

The seven companies are: Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc., Citigroup Inc., General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler and Chrysler Financial.

Could it be obama is going to finally do something right after 10 months in office?

What happens when they leave as soon as it becomes official?

What happens when they decide the pay scales at your place of employment?

Well, any company that received bailout money like AIG should not be giving it's execs millions in bonuses.

I could see some execs leaving because of the bonus cut. 90% is huge.

Not sure what pay scales have to do with government bailouts. Haven't read the full article so maybe I'm missing something.

What if the company already paid the government back?

Frazzled wrote:What happens when they leave as soon as it becomes official?

Umm... you say that, like it would be a bad thing. By all rational measurements, these execs, are most likely the ones who caused those problems for said companies in the first place.... sooooo, seeing them get all pissy and leave, is really not such a bad deal IMHO.

Personally, I would have loved to see most of those companies fall apart, like any other company would after making the types of decisions that lead to their crisis in the first place. Sink or swim baby, but I can still understand how a few companies really deserved at least some of that gov. support, but frankly, it is outrageously nonsensical to hold fast to a contract that these execs really did not manage to fulfill in many ways. So part of doing your job, is doing it in a way that does not take your company into a spiral, and I really see no reason at all to feel pity for most of these cats that are going to see a huge "pay cut".

What happens when they decide the pay scales at your place of employment?

They get fired... I see no reason why they should be able to get away with punishing their employees for mistakes that cannot be rationally attributed to them. At any rate though, I would expect to see a thinning of the ranks, before a sweeping pay cut would take place. Even then though, what would keep people in those jobs for long if the economy picks back up again? Most people working in jobs that would be effected, are clearly obedient, but also clearly not stupid; at least in most cases.

Frazzled wrote:What if the company already paid the government back?

That is more tricky, but in all honesty, greedy execs, that can't handle losing some of their bonuses, should probably be looking for other work anyway. I agree that 90% would be pretty ridiculous if the execs had turned around the company using the bailout funds, and then paid them off to boot; I still feel that they should not be getting millions upon millions of dollars for fixing a problem that they most likely caused in the first place though.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What happens when they leave as soon as it becomes official?

Umm... you say that, like it would be a bad thing. By all rational measurements, these execs, are most likely the ones who caused those problems for said companies in the first place.... sooooo, seeing them get all pissy and leave, is really not such a bad deal IMHO.

Personally, I would have loved to see most of those companies fall apart, like any other company would after making the types of decisions that lead to their crisis in the first place. Sink or swim baby, but I can still understand how a few companies really deserved at least some of that gov. support, but frankly, it is outrageously nonsensical to hold fast to a contract that these execs really did not manage to fulfill in many ways. So part of doing your job, is doing it in a way that does not take your company into a spiral, and I really see no reason at all to feel pity for most of these cats that are going to see a huge "pay cut".

*(my bold) yergh ya gots me there. Agreed...for now...

What happens when they decide the pay scales at your place of employment?

They get fired... I see no reason why they should be able to get away with punishing their employees for mistakes that cannot be rationally attributed to them. At any rate though, I would expect to see a thinning of the ranks, before a sweeping pay cut would take place. Even then though, what would keep people in those jobs for long if the economy picks back up again? Most people working in jobs that would be effected, are clearly obedient, but also clearly not stupid; at least in most cases.

I see what Frazz is getting at? He is suggesting that once feds start dictating your bonus size what is to stop them from dictating the wage that you get paid instead of leaving it up to the company itself?


All hail our new wage deciding Overlords!

Yea thats what I was trying to seay although I agree with Wrexy's point on the companies referenced themselves...dangit.

Frazzled wrote:I meant at your place of business. What happens when the government thinks to decide your salary. Its happeningi n my industry, down to workerdrone levels.

Hmmm... that sounds very messy TBTH.

Personally, I think that sensible salary caps are not an entirely terrible idea. On the other hand, I simply cannot imagine tight government restrictions being anything but an awful idea. If you are flipping burgers for instance, or paperwork that requires little experience, you should not in any way, be making millions upon millions of dollars per year. It you are doing extremely skilled work, and you have invested heavily one way or another in your skills, the economy should be allowed to decide the general worth of said skills. This is true of all work of course, but especially when it comes to a field which is limited by various factors, in terms of desire to do that work, and expectations of substantial reimbursement for said skilled work.

Still really complicated stuff, but tight government control/ intervention into these types of things, usually only causes more problems.

Lowering the pay of drones (gofers, low-level researchers, you know the digs) makes absolutely no sense to me though, as I cannot imagine someone pulling in 6 figures, through such unskilled work. Personally, I do think that the minimum wage in ridiculously low, but that in some situations, is not an entirely bad thing. If the only thing keeping a lot of companies in a situation where they can realistically support local economies, vs. various forms of outsourcing; quite frankly, so be it.

If raising the minimum wage to by 25-50% (25% more still seems relatively reasonable, in terms of the minimum wage.) manages to destroy half of the economy in the process, it was obviously a fool-hardy endeavor to begin with.

Frazzled wrote:Yea thats what I was trying to seay although I agree with Wrexy's point on the companies referenced themselves...dangit.

In terms of regulating pay for the lower tiers, it is usually the companies that make those types of decisions, not the government. Not the say that the government really knows what the feck they are doing; but they do, more often than not, represent the reality of maintaining a balanced pay scale. Not to say that all corporate interests, want nothing but to pay their top people ludicrous wages, while starving their lower tiers; this simply makes no sense for most companies anyway though.

I think they've sort of brought it on themselves if they petitioned the government for taxpayer's money.

I wouldn't like to see it expanded to others, but I don't know that that's really being advocated.

Why would you expand it to others?

If Obamanation ever decides flipping burgers at BK is worth $20/hour I'll gladly go apply. Yeah it's not glamorous or attorneys wages but I could live nicely on $20/hour, 40/week.

Couldn't afford a Lambo but would still have a nice house and one new car on those wages.

Frazzled wrote:Why would you expand it to others?

I said I wouldn't.

Woops sorry.

Frazzled wrote:What happens when they leave as soon as it becomes official?

They go to night school and finish that associates degree in business? Do you buy the argument that these incompetents are actually worth the salaries they receive and that NO ONE else can be found to do as good a job unless these high wages are on offer? I don't think so.

Fateweaver wrote:If Obamanation ever decides flipping burgers at BK is worth $20/hour I'll gladly go apply. Yeah it's not glamorous or attorneys wages but I could live nicely on $20/hour, 40/week.

Couldn't afford a Lambo but would still have a nice house and one new car on those wages.

With a minimum wage of 7.50/ hour (something around that figure) around here, I am sincerely confused as to how most families could even survive on that amount of income out here. I think that minimum wage should be increased by a minimum of 25% realistically, but when you press things like that on a company, you can expect that cost to be taken from the employees in other ways anyway.

The worst part about such a low minimum wage, is that those employees are inevitably going to be making up the difference on most occasions, through taxpayer money. So you get a pretty vicious cycle of taking and giving, but never really solving most of the problems in the first place.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:If Obamanation ever decides flipping burgers at BK is worth $20/hour I'll gladly go apply. Yeah it's not glamorous or attorneys wages but I could live nicely on $20/hour, 40/week.

Couldn't afford a Lambo but would still have a nice house and one new car on those wages.

With a minimum wage of 7.50/ hour (something around that figure) around here, I am sincerely confused as to how most families could even survive on that amount of income out here. I think that minimum wage should be increased by a minimum of 25% realistically, but when you press things like that on a company, you can expect that cost to be taken from the employees in other ways anyway.

The worst part about such a low minimum wage, is that those employees are inevitably going to be making up the difference on most occasions, through taxpayer money. So you get a pretty vicious cycle of taking and giving, but never really solving most of the problems in the first place.

Here the minimum wage is irrelevant. All jobs close to that pay scale are employed by persons to whom English is a second language.

Interesting. I do think the government has the right to do that sort of thing to companies that took taxpayer money.

Oh, and minimum wage is irrelevant because of the language of the people doing the jobs? Niiiiice.

I think you'd have an easier time surviving on $7.50 and hour than $0 an hour; minimum wage doesn't create money from nowhere. Seriously, why punish the companies that try and help out low-wage workers? They should deserve it the least.

It sucks for people who desperately need money, but aren't hugely productive/well-referenced as well. I don't see a good reason for minimum wage to exist.

Frazzled wrote:Here the minimum wage is irrelevant. All jobs close to that pay scale are employed by persons to whom English is a second language.

I don't have a problem with them having those jobs, because in all honesty, I really don't mind not doing that work. I pretty much despise being hired to do one thing, then being forced to do everything. Hire a person that likes that role goddamit.

The problem I have, is the fact that there are more and more people, and fewer and fewer jobs. I could barely find enough work to fill a whole week less than two years ago, now, I can barely find any work at all. So whatever experience I have had in labor, construction, and landscaping, is basically being forced into a managerial position. I like dirt, and I really would not mind so much about doing hard labor for decent pay. When it becomes a health issue, and my boss wants me to outpace the migrant workers he saw doing roofing, while wearing flannel, and working in 90 degree heat... I have to call nonsense, and basically forfeit my position to make way for the type of employee that my employer wanted in the first place.

Most of this low pay scale work, is limited to food, construction, and cashier work. Working at Mcdonalds, or at some retail store, simply makes me angry, so I am limited by that. When it comes to relaxed, and relatively non-competitive fields in this pay-scale, I can deal with it; but not for long at all. My opportunities are literally disappearing before my very eyes.

$7.50 is alright for high schoolers just wanting a little extra party money, especially if mom and dad are the types of parents who don't support their kids foolish spending habits (and yes, wanting to get drunk every weekend at 16 is foolish).

My kids ever want party/movie/car improvement money they'll have to earn it, even if it means 15 hours at BK/week for min. wage.

Da Boss wrote:Interesting. I do think the government has the right to do that sort of thing to companies that took taxpayer money.

Oh, and minimum wage is irrelevant because of the language of the people doing the jobs? Niiiiice.

(sigh)
A legal minimum wage is irrelevant when you have open borders and people willing great hardship just to work below minimum wage.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:$7.50 is alright for high schoolers just wanting a little extra party money, especially if mom and dad are the types of parents who don't support their kids foolish spending habits (and yes, wanting to get drunk every weekend at 16 is foolish).

My kids ever want party/movie/car improvement money they'll have to earn it, even if it means 15 hours at BK/week for min. wage.

They would never be hired here if possible. As my neighbor pointed out, why get a high school snot picker when he can hire hard working immigrants. Plus they have families to support-they literally deserve more than said high schooler.

I am proud of all the work I have done, doing mostly hard labor since I was about 15.

It was satisfying to see how little chutzpah my friends, and "competition" had when it came to work. I mean hell, I build stuff when I am hanging out for fun, gotta keep that brain ticking somehow. On the other hand though, it is also depressing to see some kids nowadays, get anything they want, and whenever they want it.

Frazzled wrote:They would never be hired here if possible. As my neighbor pointed out, why get a high school snot picker when he can hire hard working immigrants. Plus they have families to support-they literally deserve more than said high schooler.

I worked at a pet food store part time for around a year when I was in high school, and for the most part, everyone was well into their 20's; most floor managers, being well into their 30's. I could care less about that job, and I would not even use it for references, but it was still odd, being one of about a dozen younger people working in this corporation, which was really quite massive for a locally owned pet food store chain. A dozen out of thousands... most of which, were people that had no career plans, just the "ability", or need, to work for ridiculously low wages; and if they were lucky, some amount of benefits.

Refreshing news; this is something the American public has been clamoring for too.

Such regulations and measures should be standard practice on any 'private' company that gets bailout money.

It depends on if it's tipped or non-tipped job. Federal minimum for non-tipped is $7.25....Federal minimum is $2.30/hour for tipped...somewhere is a document showing State min. wage for tipped employees.

I do believe it is RI still pays tipped employees (waitresses, bell hops, etc..) $2.30/hour.

States can pay what they want to tipped employees so long as it is no less than $2.30/hour. So like in Mn a waitress makes better money than a cook when you figure in the tips. Cooks generally start off in my town around $10/hour but on a good night a waitress will average about $14/hour when you add in tips.

Cane wrote:Refreshing news; this is something the American public has been clamoring for too.

Such regulations and measures should be standard practice on any 'private' company that gets bailout money.

Yea, I have to agree with that.

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Interesting. I do think the government has the right to do that sort of thing to companies that took taxpayer money.

Oh, and minimum wage is irrelevant because of the language of the people doing the jobs? Niiiiice.

(sigh)
A legal minimum wage is irrelevant when you have open borders and people willing great hardship just to work below minimum wage.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:$7.50 is alright for high schoolers just wanting a little extra party money, especially if mom and dad are the types of parents who don't support their kids foolish spending habits (and yes, wanting to get drunk every weekend at 16 is foolish).

My kids ever want party/movie/car improvement money they'll have to earn it, even if it means 15 hours at BK/week for min. wage.

They would never be hired here if possible. As my neighbor pointed out, why get a high school snot picker when he can hire hard working immigrants. Plus they have families to support-they literally deserve more than said high schooler.

Up where I'm at immigration isn't a huge problem. Most minorities get paid better from the system than working at BK or McD's anyway. I don't see a problem with HS wanting jobs. Teaches them money responsibility (one would hope anyway), keeps them from being a nuisance (if they are a nuisance at work at least boss has to deal with them) and also shows teens that the world extends beyond their bedroom at home.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm confused Frazz. At first it sounds like you were against gov't regulating bonuses, even to bailed out companies for fear it would lead to our Overlord trying to control even more.

Now you agree and say it's okay?

Unconfuse me here.

Fateweaver wrote:

Up where I'm at immigration isn't a huge problem. Most minorities get paid better from the system than working at BK or McD's anyway. I don't see a problem with HS wanting jobs. Teaches them money responsibility (one would hope anyway), keeps them from being a nuisance (if they are a nuisance at work at least boss has to deal with them) and also shows teens that the world extends beyond their bedroom at home.

basically because they suck as employees in comparison. As I told Pitmaster Z - keep your schooling up, or else you'll be a ditchdigger, and frankly you can't compete against Mexican ditch diggers.

(the above is not an insult but a complement-any group that goes through travails just to work craptacular jobs and then works like a machine vs. their domestic competitors is A - ok in my book and the people you want as the backbone of your society).

Frazzled wrote:
Here the minimum wage is irrelevant. All jobs close to that pay scale are employed by persons to whom English is a second language.

English is my second language...

Luckily I earn enough for basic necessities.