From The Motley Fool's always attentive writers:

Starbucks (NDAQ: SBUX) provided the latest example of how walking out the door can actually be very lucrative for corporations' top brass.

It's no news that Starbucks is cutting costs. Its plans include layoffs and some store closures. Somehow, I doubt that baristas will receive the kind of sweet deal former Starbucks Coffee International President James Alling is getting as part of his "separation agreement." Alling will receive a lump-sum payment equal to an entire year's salary; last year, his base salary was $600,000.

Alling will also take home the equivalent of the cost of health-care coverage for one year.

The Chicago Tribune has an interesting, even if unconvincing, piece that suggests stock based compensation resulting from shareholder pressure led to GM's unstable financial condition:

First, a bit of history. Wall Street and institutional investors' pension funds, mutual funds and trusts began insisting in the 1990s that companies return more cash to shareholders. They claimed that managers were squandering resources on lavish perks and misguided acquisitions.

In the early years of the revolution, managers of U.S. corporations occasionally said no to investor demands. A couple of things got rid of that behavior. First, CEOs who bucked shareholders sometimes found themselves out of a job. Second, executive share ownership and stock options became the coin of the realm. Eventually they comprised the bulk of CEO pay. And now, CEOs wanted the same thing as owners: high returns to owning stock.

And now back to GM (NYSE: GM). Because of its size, the company was ground central for a shareholder revolution. Robert Stempel, chief executive officer, lost his job in 1992 due to pressure from institutional investors. Subsequently, the company raised the percentage of executive compensation based on stock ownership and stock options.

What happened to payout ratios? From 1996 to 2000, GM delivered more than $20 billion to shareholders: $13 billion in multiple repurchases and an additional $7 billion in dividends.

It's impossible to say where GM would be today had it spent some of that $20 billion on research and development and a rainy-day pension fund. But surely it would be a far better place than here.

From Forbes:

After clocking a juicy 38% collective pay increase in 2006, CEOs of the 500 largest companies in the U.S.--as measured by a composite ranking of sales, profits, assets and market value--saw their compensation dwindle an average 15% in 2007. (Chalk up much of that volatility to performance-based compensation packages tied to flagging earnings and share prices.) Meanwhile, [the 13 female CEOs out of the group of 500] saw their pay jump an average 27%.

Not that the pay gap between male and (the few) female CEOs doesn't persist. The average take, including salary and bonuses, for all 500 CEOs was $12.8 million--double the female average of $6.5 million.

From Financial Week:

CEOs who are hired externally cost more than those promoted from within.

In fact, chief executives hired externally made far more than their counterparts with at least two years’ tenure as CEO, according to an analysis conducted by executive compensation research firm Equilar. At small-cap firms, externally hired CEOs received a median pay package that was 79.8% higher than that of tenured CEOs. Large-cap companies paid external hires 51.1% more and midcap companies paid 10.2% more.

“Companies pay the premium because most people coming in from the outside are stepping into a bad situation,” [Equilar research manager Alexander Cwirko-Godycki] added. “Making the move [to CEO] is less risky for the executive from within because he already knows the company and may know the board well.”

From the USA TODAY:

JetBlue CEO Dave Barger will take a 50% pay cut for the second half of 2008, something Reuters calls "a show of solidarity with employees as the low-cost carrier struggles with soaring fuel prices and a slowing U.S. economy." Barger's base salary is $500,000 a year, presumably meaning that a 50% cut applied to the second half of the year will shave $125,000 from his salary. JetBlue disclosed the pay cut in a federal filing Monday, saying that Barger is making the move "in recognition of the challenges faced by the Company and its employees in the current industry environment."

From Canada's The Globe and Mail:

Now with hundreds of billions of dollars of stock market value wiped out, pressure is mounting to overhaul an executive compensation system that critics blame for drawing banks into high-risk mortgage investments, with few consequences for the CEOs who steered them there.

"Wall Street, by its nature is high risk and high pay," said David Larcker, an accounting professor and compensation expert at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.

"But what happens when the risk goes the other way. Should pay also be adjusted?"

During the mortgage boom, there was a "weird incentive" to take on risk, and top banking executives made "tremendous sums," Prof. Larcker pointed out.

"That's how this mess got made."

From the Portland Business Journal, Jim Verdonik takes a lighthearted look at executive compensation:

So, where does this leave executive compensation reform?

1. No law prohibits paying CEOs very, very, very large amounts of money, even if people don't like the idea.

2. The primary penalty for big compensation packages is public shame and embarrassment. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requires compensation disclosure in proxy statements. Newspapers publicize the disclosures. The public moans about greedy CEOs: "What pigs!"

3. "Vote the rascals out!" a traditional cry in American politics, is heard frequently from shareholder activists. The problems with voting the rascals out of the boardroom are similar to the political problems.

First, it's difficult. Voting rules favor incumbents in both political and corporate elections.

Second, new rascals often replace old rascals.

4. Finally, there is the threat of civil liability for directors who approve large compensation packages. This threat has only a modest effect on CEO compensation. Under the business judgment rule, directors aren't liable for making mistakes if they act reasonably in the way they make decisions. Companies that invest time, money and effort in presenting appropriate information to directors, hiring experts and otherwise documenting the compensation process can protect their directors from liability in all but the most outrageous situations.

The Washington Post notes that "Perks Still in Play But Sometimes Are Less Lavish:"

Financial services companies were largely rolling back executive fringe benefits in 2007. But that doesn't mean they were insignificant.

For example, before leaving with a cash severance payment of $3.2 million, Sallie Mae chief executive Thomas J. Fitzpatrick received medical, housing and auto benefits of almost $30,000 last year. Fannie Mae chief executive Daniel H. Mudd got almost $150,000 in fringe benefits, 90 percent related to life and liability insurance coverage and matches for charitable contributions in 2007. His other perks included financial counseling services, an executive health program and dining services.

It's not just executives who eat and travel on the company dime. Often, their spouses do, too.

Freddie Mac, for instance, pays business-related travel and dining expenses for the spouses of top executives.

Negotiating a new chief executive contract is no cheap exercise. Freddie Mac paid $100,000 in legal fees for chairman and chief executive Richard F. Syron to renegotiate his contract last year. He got an 18 percent raise and a $1.25 million extension bonus.

It's common for companies to foot the legal bill for executives during employment negotiations. "Many companies agree that the executives should be represented legally, and as a result they should be willing to pay for counsel for the executive," Hall said. "It's kind of like loading the gun against yourself."