response 113 of 176:

Mar 16 19:31 UTC 2006

A Gathering Consensus on CEO Pay 
The Wall Street Journal 03/15/06  
by Alan Murray  
(Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company Inc.) 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
What do super-investor Warren Buffett, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and labor boss
Gerald McEntee have in common?

Not much, except this: They all believe executive compensation in the U.S.
has gotten out of hand.

The roughly $185 million that North Fork Bancorp Chief Executive Officer John
Kanas may pocket for selling his company to Capital One is just the latest
cause for outrage. At least in his case, it's a reward for a job well-done.
More galling are payouts to people who were booted -- former Morgan Stanley
chief Philip Purcell, who was given $44 million plus a pension, or the fired
chief of Hewlett-Packard Co., Carly Fiorina, who was given more than $21
million.

Forget the old maxim about nothing succeeding like success, wrote Mr. Buffett
in this year's letter to his shareholders. Today, in the executive suite, 
the all-too-prevalent rule is that nothing succeeds like failure.

Recognizing the problem, smart companies are increasingly turning to pay for
performance. But even that approach has its pitfalls. Performance measures
are seldom made public -- for competitive reasons, companies say -- and are
open to manipulation.

Take the case of Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli, quickly becoming a favorite
target of critics of excessive pay. A footnote in his company's 2004 proxy
statement says his long-term incentive pay will be calculated by looking at
total return to shareholders over the three-year performance period and
comparing that to an established peer group of retailers. By that measure,
he has bombed. Home Depot's stock has fallen since he took over in December
2000; meanwhile, rival Lowe's shares have soared.

But in last year's proxy, the footnote changed. Mr. Nardelli now gets his
incentive pay if the company achieves specified levels of average diluted
earnings per share -- a measure by which Home Depot looks far more successful.
Shareholders may not be better off, but Mr. Nardelli is.

It is in the shareholders' best interest for the company's CEO to be focused
on such factors as driving operating performance, which is believed to
ultimately create shareholder value, Home Depot said, adding: Mr. Nardelli's
compensation is consistent with the company's philosophy of attracting and
retaining the highest performing executive leadership.

In fairness to Mr. Nardelli, who trained at General Electric, he has by many
accounts done a good job cleaning up Home Depot and boosting its profit
margins. Colin McGranahan, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein, says that while
shareholders may not have gained under his tenure, they would have been worse
off without him.

For that, he deserves a decent living. But does he really deserve last year's
total pay of $27 million-plus, including several million dollars to cover tax
payments on a forgiven loan? His board may think so -- though it's worth
noting that the board includes Home Depot co-founder Ken Langone, who headed
the New York Stock Exchange's board compensation committee that decided Dick
Grasso's pay.

Consider this: Before coming to Home Depot, Mr. Nardelli lost out to Jeff
Immelt in the competition to run General Electric. Now he takes home a bigger
paycheck than Mr. Immelt. Since joining Home Depot, he's underperformed rival
Lowe's. Yet he makes more than Lowe's CEO. Little wonder he leads the hit list
of overpaid CEOs assembled by Gerald McEntee's American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees.

Many CEOs think that we ink-stained wretches of the press feel underpaid for
our brilliance and wallop their pay packages as a result. They're half right.
But outrage is spreading far beyond the usual labor unions, liberal activists
and their journalist allies. I talked on Monday to Coleman Stipanovich,
executive director of the Florida State Board of Administration, which manages
more than $150 billion in retirement funds. His chief trustee is Republican
Gov. Jeb Bush. He says that during his review this year, the governor
specifically brought up executive compensation, and said he is irate about
what he sees going on. As a result, Mr. Stipanovich is now developing his own
hit list.

Change is under way. Boards are getting tougher. They now require compensation
consultants to report directly to them, not to company management. Proposed
Securities and Exchange Commission rules requiring clearer disclosure of
executive compensation may help, too. And the lavish separation packages given
to Mr. Purcell and Ms. Fiorina were the exceptions last year, not the rule.

But change may not be happening fast enough to stop the gathering opposition.
If the pace doesn't quicken, companies may find it forced down their throats.

response 115 of 176:

Mar 16 19:38 UTC 2006

A minimum wage will almost always cause some jobs to go away. The real 
question is how many? If the demand curve for labor is mostly 
inelastic, then the number of jobs will be few and generally not enough 
to offset the benefit of the increased wage to workers. In markets with 
monopsonies, a minimum wage will actually increase the number of jobs. 

response 117 of 176:

Mar 16 20:34 UTC 2006

#110 directly contradicts #108.

response 119 of 176:

Mar 16 20:52 UTC 2006

Re #114: Do you have any idea who makes up those boards? It's in their own
best interests to approve excessive compensation packages to assist them when
the time comes for the them to negotiate. I posted about this previously. Did
you miss it?

response 121 of 176:

Mar 16 21:16 UTC 2006

Why should anyone pay 9/10ths of what they earn to anyone?

response 123 of 176:

Mar 16 21:31 UTC 2006

A progressive income tax would result in job losses.

response 125 of 176:

Mar 16 21:45 UTC 2006

I also think that higher wage earners should pay higher taxes and yes, 
I lean towards the socialist side of things. But I have to admit that 
even though I am pretty much a pinko leftie, even I think 90% is too 
high of an income tax. 

response 127 of 176:

Mar 16 22:55 UTC 2006

Another thing. I do not feel that government's role is to redistribute 
wealth. I believe it violates the lockean foundation that our 
government was based on.

response 129 of 176:

Mar 16 23:02 UTC 2006

You want cheese with that whine?

response 131 of 176:

Mar 16 23:48 UTC 2006

And when a liberal is told to shut up, he's being "discriminated against".

response 133 of 176:

Mar 17 00:09 UTC 2006

Whose attention?

response 135 of 176:

Mar 17 01:14 UTC 2006

re #127 nharmon said:

"Another thing. I do not feel that government's role is to 
redistribute wealth. I believe it violates the lockean foundation that 
our government was based on."

If the government does not play a role in this, who will?  You think 
the rich will re-distribute wealth on their own?  Do you support a 
PERMANENT division of the classes, where nobody can get rich but the 
already rich, because there is nothing there to spur on any meaningful 
redistribution of wealth?

I think someone who has $100 million has no need to ever have a dollar 
more.  If he has $200 million, what difference would it make to him or 
his life?  At some point, excess unneeded wealth must be redistributed.

Ask Bill Gates, who has given away many billions because he knows he 
no longer needs to make any money.  He *wants* his wealth re-
distributed.

response 137 of 176:

Mar 17 01:57 UTC 2006

If someone making 21 million a year got taxed 90% on anything over 20 million,
how would it hurt them any or eliminate jobs?  Obviously they are not working
1000 times as hard as someone making 20 thousand, rather thousands of other
people are working hard to make this one person rich, and ought to get
something back for it in the form of increased government services (or even
lower taxes on less-rich people).  The super-rich could be taxed to pay for
national health care, which would help out a lot of businesses that are
currently having to outsource to avoid paying for health care for their
employees.