Should Bad Corporate Execs Take a 50% Pay Cut?

Nintendo's President is losing 50% of his salary. Why is he the only one?

Last week we learned quite a bit about Nintendo (

). First we learned that, after failing to launch the Nintendo 3DS with any good games, the system flopped. (Stunning, isn't it? Who could have possibly predicted that consumers wouldn't be willing to pay $250 for a game-less system?) Second, we learned that as a result of the 3DS' failure, Nintendo will

to $169.99. Third, we discovered that Hiroshi Yamauchi (Nintendo's former president) may have lost a whopping

in a single day. But the most interesting tidbit of all is the fact that, as a result of Nintendo's mistakes, Satoru Iwata (the company's current president) is

by 50%. GameSpot also reports that Nintendo's board of directors will take cuts between 20% and 30%. This is huge news. But why are they the only ones? Why is it that in America, bad CEOs are (at best) paid to go away with enormous severance packages? If corporate greed, the lack of a conscience, and a cocksure attitude prevent them from sacrificing pay voluntarily, why isn't someone forcing them to take a cut? Perhaps we should look elsewhere for that answer. In America, we never hear about a board of directors that decides to punish itself for bad business moves. No – our corporate directors are too busy enjoying the perks of being on the board to worry about the company's success or failure. Long live corporate greed!