Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter

OFF THE GRID
Oct 22, 09 | 9:09 AM

A Grossly Disproportionate Paycheck Is Still Okay

Share
One of the big changes that took place in America over the last 25 years was that people at the top came to be paid so much more than the average person in their companies. It was an exponential increase. Where not long ago the top guy made 20 or 30 or 40 times more than the average salary in his company, his pay packages skyrocketed to as much as 1,000 times the average. The relationship between the average and the extreme became impossible to explain.

Most people went to work and financed their lives with their salaries, without accruing significant savings (if they accumulated any assets it tended to be because their house increased in value). They often accrued less, in fact, because pension plans became less generous.

They went to work side-by-side with an ever-growing group of people who were rewarded with unimaginable riches. Generational wealth. These people who were neither founders, nor creators, nor inventors, people who were not unique in any way, people who took no risks at all, became the super rich.

This disparity colored American cultural life and this illogic became a tenet of American business life.

The financial crisis that came to a head a year ago seemed to offer an opportunity to reestablish a logic to compensation, and, hence, a more sober business sensibility, and even a new equilibrium in American life. The Obama administration even appointed a tenacious and, seemingly, parsimonious paymaster, Kenneth Feinberg, to discipline these outsized pay deals.

Yesterday, the White House released details of the Feinberg plan. In essence, the plan is to cut the salaries of as few people as possible as little as possible. The plan covers only those companies which continue to have a significant outstanding debt to the government, exempting those companies that, even though they relied on government bailouts for their survival, have now paid their loans back. The government, in other words, decided not to use its extraordinary life-or-death leverage.

The plan appears to be in keeping with what more and more is clearly the Obama goal for the recovery, to get us back to as close to where we were when the meltdown began.

There is, it seems clear, some bedrock philosophy in the Obama White House about how, in the midst of great turmoil, to manage change: Minimize it; when you can, punt.

In addition, it would probably be naïve not to figure that the Obama people, seeing themselves as top people, are ambivalent about a radical realignment of compensation levels.

Anyway, yesterday, the opportunity to reestablish some finer value of a dollar, to propound some basic tests of reasonability, to come to terms with the economic, management, and social ills of such inexplicable extremes, to make everybody a little less crazy, was relinquished.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com. You can also follow him on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NewserColumns.
8 comments
VIEWING:
 
Bambi
Oct 22, 09 11:59 AM CDT
Bail-out liabilities aside, and corruption aside, why should the payscale in private industries be anyone's business but the shareholders involved? Why is there anyone decrying it on the basis of 'fairness'? Industry is not a preschooler's sandbox, and pay is not the distribution of toys by the monitor. It's nice to 'share', but within industry, 'sharing' only happens for a reason. As I say, corruption and bail-out money notwithstanding, evidently there is a reason when ginormous bonuses are 'shared' between a company and it's executives. If there is corruption or bail-out, that's a different story. It seems Obama is filtering according to the latter. Is anyone claiming the former applies to the rest? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
gnieberg
Oct 22, 09 3:02 PM CDT
If you think shareholders have any real power over the compensation and decision making of corporate executives I have bridge near my house I'd like to sell you. The average shareholder has so little invested in any single company that the opportunity costs of even discovering the pay of the executives who control their company, let alone the time and effort needed to evaluate whether that pay is appropriate, are enormous. Moreover, most individuals have their money tied up in retirement accounts heavily loaded in mutual funds and pension funds so people rarely, if ever, know what companies they actually own stock in anyway. It's a collective action and informational disparity nightmare. And while institutional investors (mutual fund managers, pension fund managers, college endowments, etc.) do have the leverage to enforce better corporate governance they rarely exercise that power, probably because they come from the same social, educational, and ideological class as the corporate executives. I agree that government has no business in adjusting the pay of private companies that are not systemic risks to our economy. But when it comes to public companies, in particular those that are systemic risks to our (and the worlds) financial and political stability the idea that government has no business in pay is not only foolish, it is dangerous. The executives who led to world-wide collective failure, or have the potential to do so, have obligations that go beyond their shareholders. And as I said, the shareholders can't (or won't) make the necessary changes.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Oct 23, 09 8:49 AM CDT
I was suggesting that perhaps it is a public policy issue. While in the past we've assume it is a free market issue, what if, on second look, we find such huge disparities effect the greater society in ways that do become a matter for of commonweal consideration? No to be a simp here, but, hell, compensation may be too important to be left just to the compensation committee.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
Bambi
Oct 23, 09 1:07 PM CDT
Michael, of course a truly free market is not viable, but in our quasi-capitalist democracy, the question of what aspects should remain free while others are regulated is (and should be) more a matter of philosophical principle than strictly an exercise in populist compassion. The philosophical principle here is in maximizing liberty as means to embolden vitality and creativity of the citizenry, and of course, as a trade-off, there is inevitably some struggle endemic to this practice. The traditional American value has been that regulation's limits should begin not where suffering (for some) may begin, but where the prevailing market as it is will not be able to correct itself when gone awry. The idea is that regulation should be limited to those circumstances in which failure to regulate will cause the entire system to fail. In other words, I believe that most adhering to the American spirit are socialized to prefer that government intervention happen only where the market cannot/will not self-correct, even though leaving it to the devices of self-correction will introduce suffering for some for a time. (Our tradition has not been to ensure mutual prosperity, only to guarantee equal access.) This principle is so sacred to our creative vitality, yet the national idealism which supports it is diminished every time another corporate corruption scandal is publicized--for it seems to prove that we are not mature enough as a people to be trusted with real freedom and perhaps it also suggests that competition cannot but hopelessly tempt corruption. Either way, corporate (and political) corruption threatens our national morale in such as way that I believe it would be just to treat such corruption(s) as equal to political treason with punishment commensurate with that provided for traitors in wartime. In the interest of salvaging the American spirit, perhaps an increase in punishment severity for corporate crime is preferable than introducing governmental regulations that put a cap on our freedom to prosper.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
gianpaul
Oct 22, 09 12:33 PM CDT
Bambi is perfectly right. Another point worth mentioning is that all the government's bonus and pay policing should (where justified) be done more discretely. Sounds too much like a populist vendeta. But that's now the government most of you elected... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
steveo47829
Oct 23, 09 3:16 PM CDT
Isn't high executive pay based on competition to recruit the brightest minds for top positions? I believe the government should have the right to regulate pay for companies that owe them money. However, if you limit executive pay here, successful people could be driven to other business environments where they are compensated better. I agree with the idea of leveling the playing field but I think in practice the ideas proposed in this article would stifle American ingenuity and success. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Deebles
Oct 25, 09 11:26 PM CDT
Personally, I'm more disappointed in Obama than my second husband. Such potential and it just turned into my first husband. Obama like OJ proves that rich, white men are rich, white men no matter the color. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Reader33682662
Oct 26, 09 5:35 PM CDT
Under Ronald Reagan the tax rate on the highest earners fell from 70% in 1980 to 28% in 1989 (it's now 35%). Capital Gains taxes also fell dramatically. Rather than have the government interfere in what high paid board members spend so much of their time doing (setting executive pay) for just a handful of companies, Congress should do what it does best and make things more fair for all through a more intelligent taxation system Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Nov 24, 09 | 10:10 AM

Murdoch and Microsoft: The Mice Are Trying to Roar

Nov 23, 09 | 8:41 AM

Books Are Bad for You

Nov 20, 09 | 8:32 AM

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

Nov 19, 09 | 10:14 AM

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

Nov 18, 09 | 2:40 PM

And We Thought We Hated Mammograms

Nov 18, 09 | 8:43 AM

China and the Obese: The President Meets His Greatest Problems

Nov 17, 09 | 6:50 AM

Rupert Murdoch’s Guy Gets It

Nov 16, 09 | 12:30 PM

Obama's Secret Weapon: The Hug

Nov 16, 09 | 8:01 AM

The President Wants You to Know He’s Too Dopey to Use Twitter

Nov 13, 09 | 6:55 AM

Does Warren Buffett Know What He’s Talking About?

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS