SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sun Tzu who wrote (419254)9/23/2008 2:16:53 PM
From: Sun Tzu  Respond to of 1576346
 

Need a Job? $17,000 an Hour. No Success Required.

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Are you capable of taking a perfectly good 158-year-old company and turning it into dust? If so, then you may not be earning up to your full potential.

You should be raking it in like Richard Fuld, the longtime chief of Lehman Brothers. He took home nearly half-a-billion dollars in total compensation between 1993 and 2007.

Last year, Mr. Fuld earned about $45 million, according to the calculations of Equilar, an executive pay research company. That amounts to roughly $17,000 an hour to obliterate a firm. If you're willing to drive a company into the ground for less, apply by calling Lehman Brothers at (212) 526-7000.

Oh, nevermind.

I'm delighted to announce that Mr. Fuld (who continues to lead Lehman since it entered bankruptcy proceedings this week) is the winner of my annual Michael Eisner Award for corporate rapacity and poor corporate governance. The award honors the pioneering achievements in this field of Mr. Eisner, the former Walt Disney chief.

This isn't a plaque that will simply gather dust in a closet. It's a shower curtain to commemorate the $6,000 one that the former C.E.O. of Tyco purchased and billed to his shareholders.

So, Mr. Fuld, you'll be pleased to know that I've picked out a lovely green vinyl number for you. Only $14.99! Why, I saved you $5,985!

Perhaps it seems frivolous to be handing out shower curtains to chief executives when we're caught in a deepening economic crisis. Well, it is.

But one of our broad national problems is rising inequality, and it is exacerbated by corporate executives helping themselves to shareholders' cash. Three decades ago, C.E.O.'s typically earned 30 to 40 times the income of ordinary workers. Last year, C.E.O.'s of large public companies averaged 344 times the average pay of workers.

John McCain seems to think that the problem is that C.E.O.'s are greedy. Well, of course, they are. We're all greedy. The real failure is one of corporate governance, which provides only the flimsiest oversight to curb the greed of executives like Mr. Fuld.

"Compare the massive destruction of wealth for shareholders to what he gets at the end of the day," said Lucian Bebchuk, the director of the corporate governance program at Harvard Law School. A central flaw of governance is that boards of directors frequently are ornamental and provide negligible oversight.

As Warren Buffett has said, "in judging whether corporate America is serious about reforming itself, C.E.O. pay remains the acid test." It's a test that corporate America is failing.

These Brobdingnagian paychecks are partly the result of taxpayer subsidies. A study released a few weeks ago by the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington found five major elements in the tax code that encourage overpaying executives. These cost taxpayers more than $20 billion a year.

That's enough money to deworm every child in the world, cut maternal mortality around the globe by two-thirds and also provide iodized salt to prevent tens of millions of children from suffering mild retardation or worse. Alternatively, it could pay for health care for most uninsured children in America.

Do we truly believe that C.E.O.'s like Mr. Fuld are more deserving of tax dollars than sick children?

Perhaps it's understandable that C.E.O.'s are paid heroically when they succeed, but why pay prodigious sums when they fail? E. Stanley O'Neal, the former chief of Merrill Lynch, retired last year after driving the firm over a cliff, and he walked away with $161 million.

The problem isn't precisely paychecks that are huge. Baseball stars, investment bankers and hedge fund managers all earn obscene sums, but honestly — through arm's-length transactions. You and I may gasp, but that's the free market at work.

In contrast, boards pay C.E.O.'s after negotiations that are often more like pillow talk. Relationships are incestuous, and compensation consultants provide only a thin veneer of respectability by finding some "peer group" of companies so moribund that anybody shines in comparison. The result is what critics call the Lake Wobegon effect, which miraculously leaves all C.E.O.'s above average. Indeed, one study of 1,500 companies found that two-thirds claimed to be outperforming their peer groups.

John Kenneth Galbraith, the great economist, once explained: "The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself."

There are widely discussed technical solutions to C.E.O.'s overpaying themselves that we should move toward. We can also learn from Britain and Australia, which offer shareholders more rights than in America, redrawing the balance between shareholders and management and curbing pay in the process.

As for Mr. Fuld, unfortunately, he had no comment for this column. At $17,000 an hour, it probably wasn't worth his time.






To: Sun Tzu who wrote (419254)9/23/2008 2:53:18 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1576346
 
>> if its unfair to judge in regard to heaven or hell, its equally unfair to judge in regard to future incarnated lives.

Didn't you hear? Nobody is judging you.


Something is judging everyone in Buddhism and its not yourself.

To acknowledge that impurities exist, that bad actions have consequences is to acknowledge that there is something, whether a person or a law of existence or whatever, that makes that determination. Naturally, that can't be oneself for oneself is impure and thus incapable of making that determination.

You do it to yourself. There is big difference between me warning you that if you smoke you will get sick and my judging that because you smoked I should inject you with viral infections and cancer cells for an eternity of suffering.

Whatever. In your example, if there is something called karma which does the equivalent of giving you cancer as a result of doing something bad like smoking, that something is delivering a punishment for the bad behavior.

There is also a huge difference between burning in hell forever because you did X and having a chance to correct your mistakes and get out of the hole you dug for yourself.

And some Christians believe in purgatory, which is a temporary punishment. Others find scriptural support for spiritual death, meaning that unsaved souls will be destroyed and not suffer eternally:

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
Matthew 10:28

Note that the soul and body are both described as being destroyed.

Many Christians consider that hell is simply eternal seperation from God and that people make this choice themselves. As you have done. Thus you've chosen to separate yourself from God and to go to hell instead, whatever it is that seperation from God means ultimately. I think a literal lake of fire is a primitive depiction ultimately based on observation of volcanoes in the Mediterranean region.

Based on this alone, if conservatives really believed fairness and personal responsibility rather than the welfare state in the sky, they'd all switch to Buddhism ;)

Even if conservatives were to become Buddhists, they'd still believe in judgment - differentiating between good and evil - and reward and punishment. Only the details of how the judgment is made would be different.

If you were a real Buddhist, you'd believe in multiple levels of hell as they - real Buddhists - do. Though they don't believe people stay there forever.

The fact is you're not a Buddhist. I think you simply don't like the idea of a God or judgment, and consider yourself the ultimate judge of everything including yourself. I think you'd only believe in God if you could be God. Ultimately you're an egotist like most liberals.