Here is an interesting article basically highlighting the lives of high end bank executives. The poor guys will be in poverty if Obama gets his way. Top executives would have their salaries limited to $500k/yr if their firm accepts bailout money. I wish I knew what it was like to face that type of hardship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/fashion/08halfmill.html?_r=1&em

2/9/2009 4:10:38 PM

but you're not a ceo

2/9/2009 4:12:12 PM

loaded question much

2/9/2009 4:12:40 PM

I could make it work

2/9/2009 4:14:22 PM

I didn't see any mention of: Stock options

Limit their salary and pay them with more stock in their companies and maybe it will give them an incentive to perform better. Make sense to me.

2/9/2009 4:21:10 PM

I'd have to cut back on expenses, but I think I could squeeze by.

2/9/2009 4:22:17 PM

Quote :

"pay them with more stock in their companies and maybe it will give them an incentive to perform better. Make sense to me. "

Also gives them incentive to fraudently alter their books as well

2/9/2009 4:31:24 PM

i don't know, but if i can get a book deal to bankroll it i'll be happy to try

2/9/2009 4:31:39 PM

I have actually been wondering what the finances of someone who makes millions a year looks like, and i'm glad someone put some numbers to it.

However, it doesn't really give me any sympathy for them, because if I costed my organization thousands of times my salary, I would be out of a job.

Plus, there are enough loopholes that they are going to can get compensated in other ways, and it would put some pressure on them to perform.

I'd be really surprised as well that someone in that position wouldn't have considerable income from capital gains, especially now that capital gains tax are well below their normal tax rate.

2/9/2009 4:36:42 PM

Quote :

"Could you live on $500k per year?"

$500k per year is really not that much. I mean, it's less than a dollar a minute.

2/9/2009 4:42:03 PM

Might have to cancel your yacht club membership

2/9/2009 5:03:48 PM

That article was pretty stupid, and no I have no sympathy for them.

2/9/2009 5:18:41 PM

Quote :

"Plus, there are enough loopholes that they are going to can get compensated in other ways"

Exactly. They will find a way to continue to make a killing, they always do. I seriously doubt many executives will see a significant pay reduction.

2/9/2009 5:28:59 PM

these people failed at their jobs.

so fuck em

2/9/2009 5:48:27 PM

Quote :

"Each Brooks Brothers suit costs about $1,000. "

outlets you dumb non-resourceful muhfukaz...no wonder you ruined your banks.

Quote :

"So if you are in a culture where spending a lot of money is a sign of success"

i praise the almighty Jesus Ganesh Zeus that I will be raising my kids here in RTP where the atmosphere is academic. i do not want their personal growth permanently stunted at the middle school level.

2/9/2009 6:04:56 PM

A Brooks Brothers suit usually runs about 800-900 for their regular suit, and about 1800 for their higher end, superior quality Golden Fleece line of suits.

2/9/2009 7:43:11 PM

Yeah -- here's their loophole: They'll quit and work somewhere else.

2/9/2009 7:50:04 PM

http://chrisyeh.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-bail-out-banks-but-not-autoworkers.html

2/9/2009 8:03:59 PM

The real question is, "could you actually do something that was worth $500k per year?" For most of us the answer is probably a decided NO. There is a reason that a CEO's salary should be insulated from performance. No one would ever take risks or innovate if they were going to get immediately shit canned. In business, at a certain level, you have to be bold. It's not easy to make a decision that can make or break a multi million or multi billion dollar business.

Should guys get canned if they screw up? Sure, but let's not act like putting some schmoe in charge (which is what you'd get if you offered to pay the CEO the same as the company's average worker as I've heard some dumbasses suggest) would do anything other than spell certain disaster.

2/9/2009 8:13:37 PM

Not that I have any real sympathy for these people, but something that I thought was a bit interesting and some food for thought.

Most of these guys worth is tied into stocks and other compensation, so all you do by cutting into their salary is eat up disposable income. You, me and everyone else, when our money gets tight, we cut spending but you or I cutting spending doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, lets say these guys cut their spending, lets look at some consequences:

Cut out the private school: Increase the students in an already over burdened public school system WITHOUT and increase in funds (remember, they already pay for the school system even though they don't use it). In the mean time, the public schools won't hire additional teachers, and the private schools will likely fire some.

Cut out the nanny: Add one to the unemployment line

Cut out the driver: Add one to the unemployment line

Cut the personal trainer: One guy just saw his yearly income take a 12k cut

Cut the tutoring costs: One gal just saw her income take a 3k cut

So, assuming that we got our wish, and punished the evil banker and cut his salary and forced him to live a (semi) normal life, we would also have successfully put two other people out of a job, cut the incomes of two others, increased the burdens on your kids teachers and brought some other folks close to losing their jobs or taking a pay cut. And that doesn't really account for all the people who work in all the luxury resorts, spas and other places that take these chumps money.

Again, no sympathy for them, but is some feel good legislation really worth taking people's jobs?

2/9/2009 8:38:53 PM

Quote :

"PRIVATE school: $32,000 a year per student."

Quote :

"Mortgage: $96,000 a year."

Quote :

"Co-op maintenance fee: $96,000 a year."

Quote :

"Nanny: $45,000 a year."

Sticking it to some rich fucker who wipes his ass with $5 bills: priceless

2/9/2009 8:51:03 PM

Quote :

"Not that I have any real sympathy for these people, but something that I thought was a bit interesting and some food for thought. Most of these guys worth is tied into stocks and other compensation, so all you do by cutting into their salary is eat up disposable income. You, me and everyone else, when our money gets tight, we cut spending but you or I cutting spending doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, lets say these guys cut their spending, lets look at some consequences: Cut out the private school: Increase the students in an already over burdened public school system WITHOUT and increase in funds (remember, they already pay for the school system even though they don't use it). In the mean time, the public schools won't hire additional teachers, and the private schools will likely fire some. Cut out the nanny: Add one to the unemployment line Cut out the driver: Add one to the unemployment line Cut the personal trainer: One guy just saw his yearly income take a 12k cut Cut the tutoring costs: One gal just saw her income take a 3k cut So, assuming that we got our wish, and punished the evil banker and cut his salary and forced him to live a (semi) normal life, we would also have successfully put two other people out of a job, cut the incomes of two others, increased the burdens on your kids teachers and brought some other folks close to losing their jobs or taking a pay cut. And that doesn't really account for all the people who work in all the luxury resorts, spas and other places that take these chumps money. Again, no sympathy for them, but is some feel good legislation really worth taking people's jobs?"

I agree that this limit on executive compensation is stupid, counterproductive, and not to mention unconstitutional.

But this argumentation just doesn't work. Because the flip side could be argued that yes, though these are social costs of cutting his salary, you are neglecting the social gains. This money doesn't just go away when it comes out of his salary. It stays with the firm, hopefully creating jobs there, funding investments that create jobs, and his paycut may inspire the kind of fiscal responsibility in the firm that will keep it from needing an inflationary, unconstitutional, stupid bailout in the future.

2/9/2009 9:06:42 PM

Well sure, I would agree but of course that requires that it not be taken away in taxes and paying back the debts and keeping the company solvent in the first place. Interesting thought, I wonder which process loses the most money to taxes. Taking $1 million that the company has to pay out and paying it to one CEO or to 20 employees.

2/9/2009 9:21:16 PM

Quote :

"Few are playing sad cellos over the fate of such folk"

OK.. Class Envy...let's hate the rich. But in this case, these bankers made their deal with the devil by accepting gov't bailouts- so they deserve whatever fate they get.

What is more disturbing, but entirely predictable, is Barney Frank wanting to put the same pay limits on ALL businesses...

Quote :

"Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said. “There’s deeply rooted anger on the part of the average American,” the Massachusetts Democrat said at a Washington news conference today. He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies. Mr. Frank seems to be in synch with the Obama administration in his plans for executive compensation. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said last month that he might try to extend to all U.S. companies a restriction that prohibits bailout banks from taking a tax deduction of more than $500,000 in pay for each executive. "

http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090203/REG/902039977/1003/TOC&template=printart

2/9/2009 9:57:19 PM

I currently live on $13,000 a year, so I think I could manage.

2/9/2009 10:06:39 PM

Quote :

"I currently live on $13,000 a year, so I think I could manage."

You're not a very successful capitalist. Are you sure you don't want to join me in the revolution, comrade?

2/9/2009 10:17:45 PM

How is he not a successful capitalist?

2/9/2009 10:27:06 PM

I'm assuming his income roughly matches his spending. If he's putting thousands in savings each month, I'll issue a retraction.

2/9/2009 10:38:00 PM

I think that these CEOs that have been making multi-millions for the past few years can dip into their savings. Surely they've handled their money responsibly and haven't squandered it all away.

I'm not comfortable giving these CEOs billions in bailout money, then having them get that money straight into their pocket. There's a reason that they needed TARP, and it's not to give them bonuses.

2/9/2009 10:42:52 PM

Quote :

"Again, no sympathy for them, but is some feel good legislation really worth taking people's jobs?""

is the ratio of bailout bank CEOs to non-bailout bank CEOs so high that all these service providers can't find other employment in their field?

in any case, that is probably one of the worst arguments you've ever made.

2/9/2009 11:23:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm assuming his income roughly matches his spending. If he's putting thousands in savings each month, I'll issue a retraction."

I am a college student. That alone demonstrates my capitalist ineptitude. That said, my savings have been substantial over the years, so without any income I could live for many years at this burn rate. Even longer if I didn't have to pay tuition anymore.

2/10/2009 12:00:35 AM

Quote :

"is the ratio of bailout bank CEOs to non-bailout bank CEOs so high that all these service providers can't find other employment in their field?"

I would imagine that the ratio of bailout bank CEOs to non-bailout bank CEOs that also need a new driver, nanny, tutor, trainer and plan on doubling their payments to their private schools is rather high.

2/10/2009 1:25:57 AM

A bank CEO with a functioning Y-chromosome:

http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/904842.html

2/16/2009 6:13:51 PM

$60 million? Fuck that, he clearly got that by oppressing the masses. Limit him to $500k and take the rest in taxes so that we can give his employees more $400 stimulus checks.

2/16/2009 9:14:05 PM

yes. truly. because clearly this sort of behavior is the norm in corporate america.

2/16/2009 9:37:34 PM

^^

2/17/2009 7:26:21 AM

Quote :

"The real question is, "could you actually do something that was worth $500k per year?""

Not to say this proves anything, but just to add perspective - $600k Revenue per employee, ~200k profit. I think its at least conceivable.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/11537-chart-networking-technology-stocks-revenue-per-employee

2/17/2009 9:38:48 AM

Quote :

"he clearly got that by oppressing the masses. Limit him to $500k"

why would you limit his pay? nowhere does it say he took gubment bailout money.

2/17/2009 2:07:01 PM

Quote :

"he clearly got that by oppressing the masses. Limit him to $500k"

why would you limit his pay? nowhere does it say he took gubment bailout money.

2/17/2009 2:07:01 PM

Quote :

"Sure, but let's not act like putting some schmoe in charge (which is what you'd get if you offered to pay the CEO the same as the company's average worker as I've heard some dumbasses suggest) would do anything other than spell certain disaster."

I find it hard to believe that the top end of corporations operate on a merit system. It's entirely plausible that a mid-level wonk would perform better than a top-level shyster.

Not that this is an argument for government mandated salary caps, but whatever happened to the regulation that would require shareholders to directly approve CEO salaries? That seemed sensible.

2/17/2009 5:25:54 PM

From that article about the Miami banker:

Quote :

"William Perry. In 43 ½ years at City National, he climbed from janitor to vice president."

How is that possible? These days, even with a master's degree it is hard to get a job, and bachelor's is pretty much useless.

2/18/2009 12:16:13 PM

Quote :

"How is that possible? These days, even with a master's degree it is hard to get a job, and bachelor's is pretty much useless."

That's so retarded. You're an idiot if you really believe this.

2/18/2009 1:29:21 PM

We are talking about being VP of a bank here, not flipping burgers. Care to explain anything, or just insult?

2/19/2009 7:04:47 PM

^

Networking and having people like you.... You need that more than you need an education. We have countless examples of such stories where I work.

2/20/2009 10:37:59 AM

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/business/story/548550.html

This guy can do it

2/20/2009 4:07:04 PM

^^ i understand such things, but i thought professional jobs had minimum qualifications, such as a bachelor's degree. well, they do now, so i guess in those days, not. fair enough.

2/21/2009 6:11:29 PM

I'm a raging capitalist and don't get into the class envy thing that a lot of people do. If someone is filthy, ridiculously rich...well, good for him. Hopefully I will be too, someday. If not, that doesn't make it right to begrudge the "haves".

That said, for companies that are taking bailout money, i have no problem with any limit on their executive pay. The buck stops with the CEO, and they failed to meet the bottom line. I'm paying for their companies (largely against my will), so I don't really care if the CEO takes a big pay cut after screwing up.


and yeah, I could have a really, really good time on $500k/year. I worked out a budget one time for half that amount, and it amounted to a very nice lifestyle...I could really get on board with a half-million per year. Even in Manhattan, you could live awesomely (I wouldn't have much use for a personal trainer or a 2nd home, and certainly not a chauffeur or limousine--I wouldn't even want that if money was completely unlimited).

2/21/2009 6:38:33 PM

Honestly, I wish they had gone further. If we are going to reward loser companies, should have gotten rid of most of their upper management. You at least need to replicate some of the punishments that they otherwise would have gotten for failing in business.

[Edited on February 21, 2009 at 6:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/21/2009 6:53:27 PM

Quote :

"That said, for companies that are taking bailout money, i have no problem with any limit on their executive pay. The buck stops with the CEO, and they failed to meet the bottom line. I'm paying for their companies (largely against my will), so I don't really care if the CEO takes a big pay cut after screwing up."

2/23/2009 8:35:33 AM

set em up

2/23/2009 5:39:14 PM