A couple quick comments that I expect to expand upon later: From an article I can't recover yet, I read that the people who earned these "bonuses" from AIG were being paid $1 in salary. So let's call these things what they are. They are not "bonuses," they are multimillion dollar salaries. I can understand why folks in the financial world are balking at the government's efforts to quash the use of taxpayer-paid bonuses. In the real world, we have another term for these negotiated deals: Bullshit.
To my ears, this is yet another example of duplicity coming from major financial companies — nose-thumbing at the financially unsophisticated, ignorant public. Not that anyone's asking me, but I have no problem with the administration taking the company to task.
But I also believe that what's happening is the administration is looking to the courts to play the bad guys and determine legally that the bills must be paid while providing political cover for the administration's collective asses. Like I said, more later.
5 comments:
while i too deplore these bonuses in light of the billions to bail out the firm. there are some things you should ask yourself in a broader context. if you got paid $1 a year salary, which undoubtedly qualified you for health benefits, and earned a monthly commission on sales brought in which happened to average $84K per month on average, (because you were that good at selling the products) would you be outraged? my guess is these some of these people are top producers with set contracts that would have been been considered warranted had others in the company not mismanaged portfoilios in an insane manner. read the details before you pass judgement on the individuals.
A very fair comment. I will take a closer look before I add to this little screed.
It also should be noted that lately the administration is stepping back from what Congress has done so far.
To Anonymous above:
Boo-frickin-hoo. First of all, you're either a risk-taker, overly self-confident, or a fool for agreeing to a $1 a year, commission-based salary, which also relies on bonuses. When the economy slows (or tanks) it's obvious that bonuses will slow or cease to exist (unless the taxpayers are footing your bill). People who accept these types of salary parameters are akin to the fools who took out ARMs on their houses. Its a gamble that doesn't pay off in a faltering economy. You have every right to feel confident in your skills and work within a performance-based salary structure. Just don't expect taxpayers to bail you out when things go awry.
Good stuff. Keep the comments and dialogue flowing!
Post a Comment