But only because I do not recall you complaining much about congress's attempts at modifying the UAW contracts.

Maybe you did, and I missed it, but as I recall, all of your complaints about the Auto bailouts had nothing to do with that particular aspect of them.

I'm opposed to the bailout, period.

I don't think GM and Chrysler can sustain themselves in today's competitive market paying assembly line workers as if they were highly trained, skilled labor. But it's not Congress' job to set worker salaries, whether we're talking about line workers or CEOs.

Maybe you did, and I missed it, but as I recall, all of your complaints about the Auto bailouts had nothing to do with that particular aspect of them.

"What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander..."

The caveat is that, if they have existing contractual obligations owed, they're entitled to them.

So, may I assume you feel the same about the UAW members/big 3 contractual obligations?

No, you're not.
My very point.

Well, you have a reasonably firm grasp of the obvious, no one can take that from you.

Unless, of course, that is your desired effect is simply to screw the successful .

Bitsy, when I got to work, I report to the CEO, so please, try harder. I have nothing against success or the successful. Do you actually enjoy sounding like a fool?

When the CEO of a company like GM that is a train wreck makes 20 million a year, and the CEO of a fine company like Honda makes 2 million, there is something going on other than Rick Wagoner being "a success". It is not a distinction I expect you to be able to understand.

I am not making a practical argument

No, you're not.
My very point.
You're making an emotionally late and, populist argument. One that in reality if implemented will have exactly the opposite of the desired effect. Unless, of course, that is your desired effect is simply to screw the successful .

On the gov't dictat side of the equation... Aren't they asking us for money? Why do we not get to set conditions?

I oppose giving them the money. In principle, I don't have an issue with conditions in the event they get the money. The caveat is that, if they have existing contractual obligations owed, they're entitled to them.

We're in agreement there. That's how it's supposed to work, not some government dictat.

I know you are James (it was a rhetorical question)

Unfortunately, the process by which executive salaries are determined is often murky and there's a dubious process wherein overlapping boards survey pay levels, creating a conflict of interest. (There was a great article a couple years back but I don't recall where offhand.)

Bill McClellan of the STL Post-Disgrace has had a # of very good columns about this (with a St Louis tilt) about this aspect over the years. One of his most biting columns was for the CEO of Boatmens Bank (this is only one of his columns about the whole affair, not the one I would like to link to, and not even making the point I am trying to make, but if one reads it, you will get my jist)who got a multi-million dollar bonus for selling out the Bank to who ever bought it.

A dubious process indeed...

On the gov't dictat side of the equation... Aren't they asking us for money? Why do we not get to set conditions? This is the part that gripes hilzoy: It is ok as long as the conditions pertain to the UAW... Upper management? No comment from Sen Shelby...

Hilzoy has a longish post arguing that, in return for the UAW agreeing to cut pay and benefits to levels commensurate with what their non-union counterparts working in American plants in the South make, auto CEOs should do the same. She notes that the ratio of CEO pay to worker pay has skyrocketed over the years.

My general argument to that line of reasoning is that assembly line workers are much more easily replaced than executives. In this particular case, though, it’s hard to argue that some random person off the street couldn’t run a company just as poorly.

The CEO of Honda, a successful car company, makes about $2 million a year. The CEO of GM, an unsuccessful car company, makes about $20 million a year. Executives are basically raiding their companies for all the money they can get. I understand why they do it, I don't understand how the shareholders let them get away with it.

And I repeat, why aren't the share holders screaming bloody murder? After all, aren't they the ones who get to vote?

We're in agreement there. That's how it's supposed to work, not some government dictat.

Unfortunately, the process by which executive salaries are determined is often murky and there's a dubious process wherein overlapping boards survey pay levels, creating a conflict of interest. (There was a great article a couple years back but I don't recall where offhand.)

Is it worth, say, $150,000 a year to pay a chauffeur and related expenses so that he can spend hundreds of hours a year getting work done rather than driving?

Well James, you picked the one point I agreed with you on (and disagreed with hilzoy on)(I should have said as much). But in the case of these guys, if they had had to drive themselves to work, maybe a billion or 2 could have been saved?

If it isn't, you've got the wrong CEO.

Which they definitely did... and still do. So, we are giving billions to companies with a leadership that has only shown an ability to excell at losing money at a pace that has not been seen in decades, and "nobody" (in quotes, because some do) seems to think they should be standing in an unemployment line or at least take a paycut?

And I repeat, why aren't the share holders screaming bloody murder? After all, aren't they the ones who get to vote?

Why?
What practical result will this give us?

I am not making a practical argument, just extending Jame's position a bit. If a CEO somehow merits the same perks as the President, perhaps he merits the same pay.

I don't favor regulating executive compensation outside of bailout situations, but boards really need to get back to the business of oversight and due diligence.

A C level position at a major corporation should not be a slot machine that hits "777" every time. Compensation should be tied to performance. It should be capped at some multiple of the average company salary TBD by the board. You can make legitimate arguments that a CEO should have a limo and access to a jet, but not I think a company bought vacation home and and endless supply of flowers for his wife on the company nickel.

And I'm going to ask for proof regarding marginal tax rates.

This has to be a joke. Do your own research Skippy.

You tell me -- the relevant exchange is:

B: "can we say that anyone's job will be saved by such limits, on, say Wagoner's pay?"

D: "Quite probably -- with a few tens of millions extra from reducing Wagoner and other executives compensation in the company's coffers, various research and design teams could stay in the budget, rather than being axed."

B: "Methinks you to under-estimate the costs involved with Unionized workers."

D: "Methinks you don't have a clue which workers at GM are unionized. Hint, the R&D teams are not."

"I suspect that there are some differences in how that gets' measured on that site."

I suspect not, but if so, it should not be difficult for you to find countervaling statistics. Have at it.

You can tell a lot about somebody's real motivation for various arguments when they focus on those union workers but never mention the boss.

OK, tell you what. Take all the money the CEO makes. I mean, go ahead. Take it all. Spread it out among the union workers. What kind of difference, on avergae, does this make for the workers' pay?

For starters, Obama (or Bush) is the leader of the United States, as such he does not get paid near as much as the CEO's, they could easily pay for some of these benefits on their own. 2nd of all, do you really want the President of the United States commuting to work from his modest suburban Virginia homein an unarmored KIA? Do you really want him ordering out for pizza when various world leaders come for dinner?

Were I a shareholder in, say, CocaCola or Microsoft, I'd say the same of their CEOs. I want them spending their time doing their jobs, not fighting traffic. Is it worth, say, $150,000 a year to pay a chauffeur and related expenses so that he can spend hundreds of hours a year getting work done rather than driving? If it isn't, you've got the wrong CEO.

Methinks you don't have a clue which workers at GM are unionized. Hint, the R&D teams are not.

And that affects the discussion, how? Be specific.

Do your own calculations on this website. Requesting change in Real GDP during the period 1946-81 gets 3.50% average annual growth. Requesting change in Read GDP from 1981-2007 gets 3.04%.

I suspect that there are some differences in how that gets' measured on that site.