The Fatal Conceit: A Pay "Czar"-Becker

This week the Obama administration, acting through Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, appointed a pay czar to review, reject, and possibly set the pay of companies that received large amounts of federal assistance during the financial crisis. No appeals will be allowed from his decisions. The Czar, Kenneth Feinberg, will have broad authority over compensation for the top executives and 100 top employees at Bank of America, Citigroup, American International Group (AIG), General Motors, and a few other companies that received large federal bailout monies. This is surely one of the more preposterous ideas to come out of Washington. The title of my post, "The Fatal Conceit", is taken from the title of a book published in 1988 by Friedrich Hayek. In this book Hayek attacks socialists for "the fatal conceit" that government officials can effectively determine prices and production through various forms of central planning without having the incentives and information available to firms in competitive markets. A closely related conceit is behind the belief that someone sitting in Washington can determine the pay to hundreds of executives and other employees. The social purpose of competition and private enterprise is to provide quick responses to constantly changing market conditions. These responses include determining and changing the salaries, bonuses, and stock options of employees and top executives. Companies get into trouble and even fail when their decisions, including decisions on the quality of employees and their compensation, are less effective than decisions of their competitors. All the companies that will have the pay of top employees under the control of the Czar compete against companies, both domestic and foreign, that will be free to set the pay of their employees. If these companies offer higher pay than the Czar allows for companies under his jurisdiction-whether this higher pay takes the form of bonuses or other forms, or whether fully justified or not-the controlled companies will lose their best employees to competitors, and they will have trouble attracting employees who are highly capable. The Czar could even be making serious mistakes if he just allowed the pay of companies under his control to match the pay offered by competitors. For it is plausible that companies in hock to the government may have to pay more than competitors to entice capable persons to take on the task of resurrecting these companies. This is especially likely since Congress and the Treasury will be calling them to testify and second-guessing their decisions. The background of the Czar, Kenneth Feinberg, is not reassuring in these respects. A lawyer, he first worked for the federal government, and then during the past several decades headed a law firm based in Washington. Since he apparently has never been an employee of any company other than the government and Washington law firms, how can this background prepare him to set the pay of large companies, such as AIG or GM, that are in highly competitive industries? In recent interviews Mr. Feinberg claimed that excessive risk-taking fuelled the crisis, and that this risk-taking also led to excessive compensation. Surely, risk-taking has essentially nothing to do with the problems of GM and Chrysler, two of the companies under his wing. Growing leverage by banks of their limited capital base did contribute to the crisis, and perhaps that also greatly increased the pay of bank executives. However, even if this claim is entirely correct, I do not see how that can help him efficiently determine the pay of the (fortunately) few companies under his jurisdiction when their competitors can set the pay of their employees much more freely. Defenders of the selection of Mr. Feinberg point to his almost three years spent as a pro bono Special Master of the fund that compensated victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I do not know how well he carried out these duties, but determining compensation of victims is entirely different from what is required to set compensation of executives. As Special Master he had to assess the value of losses due to wrongful deaths and injuries. Although that assessment is not easy- it depends on lost earnings and other aspects of the so-called statistical value of life- it really has little to do with determining employee pay in a few companies engaged in highly competitive and changing industries. The same fatal conceit behind the setting up of a pay Czar is also responsible for the belief that members of Congress and Washington officials are capable of steering GM and Chrysler toward profitable directions. This is behind the government pressure on these companies to shift toward small fuel-efficient cars, even though GM and Chrysler have been best at producing trucks and larger cars. Perhaps they will be able to make this shift, but it is far more likely that Honda, Kia, Toyota, and other foreign auto manufacturers that have been making small cars for decades will eat their lunch.

Comments

[Anonymous]

Obama is on the right track here. Those execs should be compensated and he's moving us back toward a better economy. There's been a lot of reports that show a good economy is also good for marriages, as well: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/06/17/california-divorce-recession-alimony/

[Anonymous]

Anon 9:13: Perhaps, however CEO gleanings have soared from 60 times the pay of working folks to over 400 times in just 30 years. Perhaps that would not be so bad but the pay of working folks has been virtually flat during the same era despite a doubling of per capita productivity. I'm SURE that is not "American" either.

Also, I don't favor the current situation of token pay for "Walmarters" with taxpayers subsidizing the difference between the token pay and something akin to a living wage.

As we've slipped into such an unhealthy wage situation, it seems to be made even worse by those garnering most of the wealth paying most of the taxes. Not so hot for a democracy to have one "class" paying for most of the services while those of the lower echelon pay next to nothing and while receiving a host of costly and bureaucracy-laden transfer payments.

Wouldn't a principled capitalist favor a bottom wage that at least paid for a minimum std of living? (much as the capitalist would expect to pay the full operating costs for his plant and equipment?) An honest wage structure would also result in a more honest allocation of resources i.e. if a job is seen not to be "worth" at least what it takes to maintain one human being, it will simply be done differently, not at all or Ha! by the CEO who decided he wanted a pick-up truck's worth of labor for a motor scooter's worth of pay.

At the top, I'd not favor a WWII-ish system of taxing away high salaries, and lean toward the company's owners having more say. Easy to do in a small biz where the retiring founder decides what is's worth to have his company run for him, but very difficult for a public company whose stock is owned by many individuals whose holdings are so small that the pay issue would not be worthy of their time. I dunno........ tough one but having a group of old boys continuing this rip-off game that has gotten totally out of hand, also seems un-American and certainly anti-competition. Further thoughts? Jack

[Anonymous]

Anon., 9:13am

Can't set pay caps? It's done all the time and is "American" as Apple Pie. Ask any Personnel - Oh! that"s right, it's been P.C.'d to "Human Resources"; Director (I'm still trying to figure this one out - ahh ... the benefits of an MBA).

No wonder we've got "PROBLEMS".

[Anonymous]

ChemicalsBuyersGuide.com is the world's largest directory of chemical producers and suppliers for global trade and the leading provider of online marketing services for importers and exporters. It is the place for buyers and sellers to find trade opportunities and promote their business online.
ChemicalsBuyersGuide.com is not a trading company but rather an online business platform, where you can search or post information to find potential business partners.

http://www.chemicalsbuyersguide.com

[Anonymous]

Anon. June 20, 3:50.

Great Site! Does this mean I can buy NBC precursors "anonymously" online and mix up a nice WMD in the kitchen or bath? Ahh ..., the joys of Free Markets and Free Trade!

And we wonder why we have "Problems".

[Anonymous]

area extinctions late scenario primary

[Anonymous]

I like it!

[Anonymous]

good artist

[Anonymous]

we have no choice but let such conceit come out of the white house.the controlled companies are all famous and competitive giants in themselves fields. it is plausible that they will enroll employees with their fame and capabilities instead of setting high pay same as those free in employees' payment or wages.still thank you for your post and really appreciate you great idea,Becker...ED Hardy,ED Hardy

[Anonymous]

good site
http://www.sneakersupplier.com buy nike shoes online

[Anonymous]

good site
http://www.sneakersupplier.com buy nike shoes online

[Anonymous]

It is a wonderful article,i like it,thank you very much!

[Anonymous]

بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

great post,and you will lovetiffanys,
tiffany

[Anonymous]

العاب
___
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

[Anonymous]

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ŸÖÿµÿ±
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

IkbpCg

[Anonymous]

ÿØÿ±ÿØÿ¥ÿ©
___
صور

[Anonymous]

Sorry. As I get older, I've learned to listen to people rather than accuse them of things.
I am from Islands and bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Buy maurice broomfield photographs online at foto."

Regards ;) Eddy.

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats ao usefully----
Tiffany jewellery
tiffanys

[Anonymous]

Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

thanks for your

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!