![](http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/9471/wileecoyote2290200.gif)
![](http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/2323/wileecoyotegravity22963.jpg)
It turns out that when Pay Czar Ken Feinberg cut the pay of executives at bailed out firms, there was no rush for the exits:
For months, Wall Street banks and the troubled automakers feverishly protested that their top executives would flee if they were not lavishly rewarded for their talents. New data, however, suggests the departures were more of a trickle than a flood.
Of the 104 senior executives whose pay was set by the federal pay regulator in the last two years, 88 executives, or nearly 85 percent, are still with the companies even though their pay was drastically cut back, according to people briefed on the government data.
There are a number of reasons, including the fact that these”super geniuses” are really pretty toxic, and for the most part, really not much special.
Additionally, if you are getting “only” $2 million a year, you can still live pretty well on that, even in Manhattan, and it’s a pain looking for a job ………… Trust me on this one, it’s a real pain looking for a job.
And 15% turnover in 2 years, that might actually be less than normal.
The NYT analysis is that "[t]he relative stability, at least within the executive suite, suggests that a soft job market, corporate loyalty and personal pride helped deter the feared management exodus at the companies hardest hit by the pay rules."
The possibility that these guys are simply overpaid, have no other such lucrative options and never had any, and are lucky even to be paid their huge post-pay-cut salaries is simply unimaginable at the NYT.