Bonus outrage poor excuse for good public policy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Mike Hicks
The wages paid by a company to its employees are a distinctly private matter. Government has no competence (legally or practically) in this area, and should remain officially detached from the matter.

That does not mean we cannot be outraged by the decisions executives make about wages, bonuses, retirement plans and golden parachutes. Indeed, fury is the emotion of the day and we should be surprised if our elected leaders, from President Obama on down, remained silent on the matter. But outrage and calumny are poor motivations for public policy.

The current disgust is rightfully aimed at executive bonuses at failing insurance giant American International Group. This company persists in giving huge bonuses even though it was among the first recipients of the "too big to fail" bailout programs that began late last year.

These bonuses are doubly hard to swallow since many of them consist of more money than most of us will make in a lifetime of hard, honest work. This is simply poor moral leadership from the board of directors on down.

But the problem does not end with AIG. General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC have both received huge federal bailouts. Both corporations have been driven into a catastrophic state in large measure due to labor contracts with the United Auto Workers. Company-paid health care benefits and 30-year retirements doomed both companies long before the quality of their cars became a staple of late-night TV jokes.

In both cases, the free markets should take care of the poor decisions by these firms. For example, the breathtaking decline in unions over the past 25 years is largely due to workers rejecting the job-killing environment that comes with union membership. Indeed, if UAW membership follows the trend of the past three years, it will be gone by 2012. This is the market working to clean house.

Unfortunately, the mechanism to clean up poor decisions by corporate boards is far less advanced—this, despite the fact that the problem was noted as far back as the 1930s in a book by two Harvard professors, Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means. I think I have a partial solution that's tailor-made for the Internet age.

A private-sector group, like Underwriter's Laboratory, needs to track corporate board members. The votes of individual board members would be followed and reported annually (this would require a change to Securities and Exchange Commission rules). This would be useful information for institutional investors as they pick and choose investments. Indeed, it is institutional investors as well as labor groups who should fund this effort.

This system wouldn't be perfect. After all, we do the same for lawyers and physicians, and malpractice still exists. However, this would be a huge step forward in improving corporate boards.

Further, it might prevent us, in the future, from wasting our time and emotions on shameless fools like those running AIG.


Hicks is director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at cber@bsu.edu. 

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Kent's done a good job of putting together some good guests, intelligence and irreverence without the inane chatter of the other two shows. JMV is unlistenable, mostly because he doesn't do his homework and depends on non-sports stuff to keep HIM interested. Query and Shultz is a bit better, but lack of prep in their show certainly is evident. Sterling obviously workes harder than the other shows. We shall see if there is any way for a third signal with very little successful recent history to make it. I always say you have to give a show two years to grow into what it will become...

  2. Lafayette Square, Washington Square should be turned into office parks with office buildings, conversion, no access to the public at all. They should not be shopping malls and should be under tight security and used for professional offices instead of havens for crime. Their only useage is to do this or tear them down and replace them with high rise office parks with secured parking lots so that the crime in the areas is not allowed in. These are prime properties, but must be reused for other uses, professional office conversions with no loitering and no shopping makes sense, otherwise they have become hangouts long ago for gangs, groups of people who have no intent of spending money, and are only there for trouble and possibly crime, shoplifting, etc. I worked summers at SuperX Drugs in Lafayette Square in the 1970s and even then the shrinkage from shoplifting was 10-15 percent. No sense having shopping malls in these areas, they earn no revenue, attract crime, and are a blight on the city. All malls that are not of use should be repurposed or torn down by the city, condemned. One possibility would be to repourpose them as inside college campuses or as community centers, but then again, if the community is high crime, why bother.

  3. Straight No Chaser

  4. Seems the biggest use of TIF is for pet projects that improve Quality Of Life, allegedly, but they ignore other QOL issues that are of a more important and urgent nature. Keep it transparent and try not to get in ready, fire, Aim! mode. You do realize that business the Mayor said might be interested is probably going to want TIF too?

  5. Gary, I'm in complete agreement. The private entity should be required to pay IPL, and, if City parking meters are involved, the parking meter company. I was just pointing out how the poorly-structured parking meter deal affected the car share deal.