Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Dec. 28, 2001 / 13 Teves, 5762

Matthew Miller

Matt Miller
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


CEOs: I wouldn't have my salary set by the market -- why should you?


http://www.jewishworldreview.com -- AMID all the heartbreaking tales of dot-com CEO woes this year -- like that of former chief George Shaheen of failed online grocer Webvan, whose stock, once worth $280 million, ended up worth just $150,000 -- a stunning fact about broader CEO pay has gone unremarked.

Last year, while profits lagged, and typical investors saw their portfolios drop 12 percent in value, CEOs at top firms got an average 22 percent raise in salary and bonus.

What gives? When CEO pay soars even as corporate performance lags, we get a rare glimpse at one of American capitalism's more instructive secrets: CEOs who cheerlead for market forces wouldn't think of having them actually applied to their own pay packages.

The conceit, of course, is exactly the opposite: top CEOS rake in more than $20 million on average, we're told, because that's what "the market" demands. If you want Michael Jordan in your lineup, you have to pay what it takes to get him.

The reality is that CEO pay is set through a clubby, rigged system in which CEOs, their buddies on board compensation committees, and a small cadre of lawyers and "compensation consultants" are in cahoots to keep the millions coming irrespective of performance.

Here's how it works. Say Amalgamated Widget is looking for a new chief executive to turn around its troubled operations. Once the board settles on a candidate, the candidate's lawyer has a compensation consultant prepare a report showing the salaries and stock packages given to CEOs at similar companies facing comparable challenges. Amalgamated's compensation committee -- usually packed with CEO pals from other firms who are only too happy to see pay spiral upward, since it helps them in their next negotiation with their own board -- might commission a similar report themselves.

Everyone's incentive is to make sure that every CEO, like the children of Lake Wobegon, gets paid "above average." The result is ever-rising pay packages that are set by "the market" in the same way California wholesale electricity prices today are set by "the market" -- that is, by a small cartel of coordinated sellers who have the buyers (in this case, the shareholders) over a barrel.

The clearest proof that something in this "market" is amiss comes when failed CEOs are ousted with obscene departure packages -- in many cases going millions beyond what the chief negotiated on his or her way in.

Jill Barad, for example, received a $57 million severance package after nearly destroying toymaker Mattel. Mark Willes walked away from a shabby stint at media giant Times Mirror with a reported $90 million. Executives know that once they crack the inner sanctum, even failure is richly rewarded. Front line employees who feel outraged and demoralized by such payoffs can't be blamed for thinking they represent hush money at work, not the free market.

Even insiders are getting squeamish at the excess. "The risk is being taken out of executive compensation," laments one boardroom advisor.

"Its all done in a very genteel manner," says another. "People at this level are treated very differently."

That may be the understatement of the millenium. But it also holds an indispensable policy lesson.

Once the veil is lifted, and you realize that CEO pay is set largely by the exercise of institutional power designed to insulate CEOs from market forces, there is no philosophical or ideological reason not to use the same power on behalf of workers.

The argument made against policies like a higher minimum wage, or hikes in such wage supplements as the Earned Income Tax Credit, is that they represent an unacceptable and even dangerous attempt to tamper with market forces.

Next time Congress takes up these debates, don't let the hypocrites fool you. After all, if the boss wouldn't think about having his paycheck determined entirely by the free market, why should the rest of us?



JWR contributor Matt Miller is a senior fellow at Occidental College in Los Angeles. Comment by clicking here.

Up

12/21/01: Education: the real 'standards' problem
12/17/01: The news, 2015
12/07/01: The Left's new dilemma
11/30/01: Harvard flunks
11/26/01: Time to re-think privatizing charity funding?
11/16/01: CEO shamed on pay at last (but has $300 million to drown sorrows)
11/09/01: As Bush turns to Hollywood, its creators are pensive
10/14/01: Schizophrenic over profiling
09/11/01: Bush and Daschle are insulting the 'fiddlers'

© 2001, TMS