Agreed

Fail. I am not a CEO (and from what it sounds like neither are you) but while their pay leads to cushy lifestyles I highly doubt they aren't doing a ton of work.

 

I hope he buys a new Citation Columbus in the next few years, for my sake.

 

A large part of the problem with today's corporate environment is that this attitude is uncommon. CEOs get to collect craptons of money, regardless of whether they run the company into the ground or not. This, in turn, does not foster a healthy attachment to the company's fortunes.

A real leader would do what Bill Ford did. He'd take responsibility for the company going south under his watch, and cut his own salary for the greater good of the company. But that's just not American.

 

not only that but most people that own jets keep them in the air even when they arn't flying in them....it can actually make you money that way. A jet sitting in a hanger is a jet not making any money and being an expense.

Depending on the price of fuel, distance you are flying and amount of people you are taking with you its cheaper to fly like that....

I know you are all thinking lke these guys are driving limos up to the runway and jumping in drinking champaign and rolling in 100 bills but its not like that.

 

Oh, and as for the supposed $20k trip cost... Jet A is not cheap, and jets burn a lot of it.

Accoreding to Airnav, Jet A is selling for $6.50 at Dulles currently. So $20k would buy a little over 3000 gallons of fuel. A Gulfstream IV burns about 500 gallons an hour. So for $20k, you buy about six hours of flight time in a GIV. And that's without even considering what the burn rate goes up to during climbout.

 

I read today on CNN that Wagoner makes 9 million a year. IF he's been being compensated that much per year, and other execs make in the millions a year, but are unwilling to drop that down to a more reasonable level to help their companies survive, and then maybe in the future when they're doing well make that much and even more, then there is definately something wrong with the way they're thinking.

As for the private jet, im sure it would have been more economical to charter a flight, or hell buy commercial first class tickets for all that were flying, then to put their own jets up in the air. Just a fact... now whether or not they're willing to do that, idont know, but again, if not, there's something wrong.

 

Actually, Nardelli said he would work for a dollar... No one but Cerberus knows what his compensation package is.

Mullaly did not agree to work for a dollar. Wagoner said he had already taken a 50% cut in compensation. Mullaly makes a good deal more than Wagoner. As in WAY more.

None in congress mentioned that THEY are willing to forego compensation as a result of the economy, nor did they offer to be paid in keeping with their approval ratings. ....Hey, when in doubt apply a little class warfare to the confusion.

I do agree that success should be rewarded and failure has it's justifiable results as well.

Let's look at members of congress and their retirement plans:

Members of Congress began paying into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul. This is a requirement, and Members may not opt out of it. They then have the option of participating in one of two pension plans, depending upon when they were elected (most of them do). If elected before 1984, they participate in the Civil Service Retirement System; if elected 1984 and after, they participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System. These two plans are also offered to rank and file federal employees, EXCEPT that the Congressional plan's benefit is calculated on a more generous formula than that offered to most other government workers. The "accrual rate" is much higher, and lawmakers tend to be able to retire earlier with benefits than other federal workers (as early as age 50).

Also, Members of Congress may participate in the government-wide Thrift Savings Plan, which works like a federally-managed 401 (k) salary reduction plan. FERS participants are entitled to a government match of up to five percent of salary; CSRS participants may set aside part of their own salary, but they do not receive the match.

In both cases, Members of Congress do contribute to their pension plans, although the rates are somewhat complicated by the fact that since 1983, lawmakers have been required to pay into Social Security. Members elected before 1984 must pay 8 percent of their salaries into the pension plan, but may elect a "Social Security offset" provision that allows them to split the pay-in (6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.8 percent for the pension.) The result is that upon retirement, Members receive a pension that is reduced by the amount of Social Security that is attributable to Congressional service. Members elected in 1984 and thereafter pay 1.3 percent towards the pension and 6.2 percent to Social Security. This only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

With service of 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her final salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member's final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAs begin to kick in. For example, a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more, if he or she retires in his/her fifties, lives until his/her eighties, and elects to leave a part of the pension benefit to a spouse, who then live 10 or more years longer. This could include George Mitchell, especially after his post-Congressional government service. With Cost of Living Adjustments, total payments over a lifetime can reach these levels (though the more typical payout is likely to be between $1 million and $2 million).

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.

Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension. A senator of one 6 year term limit is good to go for a pension. The house is tougher.

 

Key takeaway from your statement.

 

I don't begrunge Rick his generous compensation - he has an agreement in place with the Board of Directors that presumably can be terminated at any time.

That being said, I think that GM's board is guilty of malfeasance that borders on treason for what it's allowed to happen in the US industry on its watch.

 

I don't really have a problem with it. Figure he doesn't do regular work, GM pays him far too much to have him sitting in airports for hours. Not to mention an airlines schedule may not align with when and where he needs to be. I imagine he flies with an entire team of people as well, lawyers, advisors, etc. There was probably 10-15 people on the plane if not more. Once you start buying 15-20 plane tickets on short notice it gets expensive quickly.

 

Every hour that Rick spends traveling is an hour not spent blowing through GM's remaining cash.

 

Apparently he blows through remaining cash while traveling too.

 

I understand the need for cutbacks across the board. I also understand that things like taking private jets and expensive dinners sound unreasonable given the situation these companies are currently in.

BUT when you burn through money at the rate of BILLIONS of dollars per month, a million dollar salary, a $10,000 private jet flight, etc are drop in the bucket items! The nonuse of a company private jet or paying a executive $1 is not going to change the problem of burning billions, as in a B, of dollars per month. There are programs that are ran by the companies can be cut that will make a bigger impact on that number.

 

Matter of perception. If I thought Wagoner was the issue, or what is pay his, I'd be in front of the torches and pitch fork line.

I don't see it that way. I figure if you are not suited to the job your pay is not at all at issue.

This whole situation calls for more serious consideration than mere acts based on symbolism or strictly symbolic gestures thrown about for political effect. The rhetorical red herrings clariy nothing in this question.

I watched the hearing and listened to the question about compensation. The person asking the question preceeded the question by saying that clearly the big three were not AIG. Then he asks a question, I suppose, that he didn't bother to ask AIG.

 

I agree with what Chris Matthews said on "Hardball" last night. If these companies want to be essentially part of the government, then the execs should paid like government workers. Which means that the CEO's can't make more than the President of the US does, a paltry $400,000 a year. Now I know that these guy's would balk at working for this poverty wage because as corporate CEO's their skillsets are worth SOOOO much more than that, even though it was those same skills that put the company in the position of having to beg the government to essential do a partial buyout of the company just to stay in business. That's the trouble with climbing to the top of Mt. Olympus, the clouds tend to disconnect you from reality!l