Hiya Mike!

>I strongly disagree with you (without any personal animosity). Executive pay is most surely the business of shareholders. It is equally the business of consumers, the ones (us!) who ultimately always get stuck with the bill.

No, it's not. How is it the business of non-shareholders in any legal or ethical sense? Sure, we get the bill but we don't have to pay it for the most part and can chose a competitor with better prices.

>Perfect case in point: the executives of oil companies. There was a great column in the business section of the NY Times the other day, basically saying prepare to become seriously outraged when executive compensation disclosure statements come out in the coming weeks. These guys are about to get 2005 bonuses that would make the greediest investment banker think, "Whoa, that's a little TOO much."

Nothing is too much if the shareholders have agreed to that type of compensation. Again, I fail to see the malfeasance. If you don't like it, that's one thing. But it is legal.

>We have all heard about ExxonMobil's record profits last quarter. executive bonuses are tied to those profits, as they are in most industries, even though in this case the cause of those profits was about 99 parts the rise in commodity prices to 1 part shrewd management. This article estimated oil company profits rise 1.5% for every $1 increase in the price of crude oil. Do their executives deserve bonuses of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions each for last year?

If their contracts said so and had the blessing of shareholders --- yup!
>
>>Again - bad thinking.
>>
>>There are laws that govern CEO compensation according to how a company is organized. If a CEO is compensated within those laws then it's no one's business...period. That's all there is to say.
>>
>>
>>>I think Jim understood your point. He just disagrees with it, and I am with him on this one. Executive salaries, bonuses, and stock options HAVE become obscene. Gretchen Mortensen of the NY Times won a Pulitzer Prize last year on this very subject, and continues to shine a big probing flashlight on those who deserve it. You're right about Darwinism; it has always been so and always will be. But never has the gap between rich and poor been wider in this country. You can look at someone like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and say OK, he's rich, but the employees and stockholders have benefited. Where it becomes obscene is when top execs of money-losing or even failed companies walk away with millions of bananas. That's not right. And we need to fix it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I understand where you're coming from but I don't think you understand my point.
>>>>
>>>>Those with funds get better healthcare, legal coverage, houses, TVs, etc. than those that don't. Gosh, what a surprise.
>>>>
>>>>We live in a capitalist society. There's a degree of Darwinism involved. Sad, but true. There has to be a better way than just demonizing the wealthy and attempting to approproate their wealth. That's just as unfair.
>>>>
>>>>As to pensions and CEO salaries....no comment. I think it's stupid to limit salaries at any level. Bad business.
>>>>
>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My question is...what makes it right to abuse and excoriate the wealthy simply because they are so? A free society is an equal society.
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is wrong - if your second statement was true in fact.
>>>>>But it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>We all know that those with money get different "justice" than those with little. Sure, powerful lawyers also do pro-bono work, but those only create inconsequential exceptions.
>>>>>We all know that those with money get different medical services than those with little. With money, insured or not, you will get there fast, get to where you want and get what you need plus some just to be sure. Those with little may have to get there on their own, are diverted to specific hospitals if by ambulance, and get the minimum care before they are discharged. I understand that in Texas a law was passed last year allowing hospitals to discharge people who have run out of money.
>>>>>We all know that the wealthy have (or can make) connections in Congress and the Executive branch to protect/grow their interests. Those with little get to take the public tours of the buildings.
>>>>>
>>>>>When executive salaries got to be 400+ TIMES the average salary of the employees they administer, things got seriously out-of-whack.
>>>>>Now executives are stopping pension funds in their tracks, but I'll bet they have handsome pensions written into their own contracts that survive! And pension money they don't even need except that's the "scorecard" for success.
>>>>>
>>>>>Salaries+bonuses in the tens of millions plus huge pension plans and golden parachutes are obscene and, worse, it's money they cannot actually spend no matter how hard they try.
>>>>>When things get more sensible at the executive end then things can change.