Wall St comps bounce back to pre-crash level

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/business/26pay.html?hp The people remain gets big bucks while the people who are now on the sideline are biting the dust. Such a cut throat business. But I guess that’s the lure that attracts us all to this field…

haha, this made the article: “We need to be able to pay our people,” said Lucas van Praag, a spokesman for Goldman, adding that the rest of the year might not prove as profitable, and so the first-quarter reserves might simply be “sensible husbandry.” first, lucas van praag - lol - what a douchebag name second, i like how he acknowledges that the ibanks won’t be able to continue to lie about their profitability for the remainder of the year

In this kind of environment, the money a bank sets aside for compensation every quarter has nothing to do with year-end bonus payouts. Last year, my bank set aside enough to pay a bonus equal to 50% of 2007 levels. However, we ended up receiving 10-20% of 2007 bonus levels given scrutiny around pay, acceptance of tarp funds, etc. Until banks pay back the tarp funds, there is no way they will be able to pay compensation any where near 2007 levels.

How do you know? Don’t we have less people working in the industry now? So everyone should get a bigger share of the pie

ymc Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do you know? Don’t we have less people working > in the industry now? So everyone should get a > bigger share of the pie but the pie got smaller … ?

I think the pie shrinks much more than the shrink in head count. So the overall effect is a smaller slice.

I like pie.

Warm Apple Pie?

My compensation has definitely not bounced back to pre-crash levels

I feel like a bonded labourer.

I’m glad Wall St. pay is almost back. I’m sick of hearing “Main St.” whine about tax payer dollars being used to bail out the financial system. Lets be honest: Most of Main St. doesn’t make enough to meaningfully support the tax base, so they should shut their traps and be thankful that the U.S. has enough highly paid people (including bankers) to fund Uncle Sam’s programs. The next time someone rants about their “tax payer” dollars being spent, they should be required on the spot to state how much they have paid in taxes over the past decade. They can then compare that to what all the (now) laid-off bankers paid in taxes every single year over the past decade.

dirty I use to think the same way but no I dont even care. Yes I pay more in taxes then my mother makes but who cares.

It’s only a minor irritant really. I’m just sick of people ranting about how their “theoretical” tax dollars are being spent, when many barely pay taxes to begin with.

on that note… I agree

DirtyZ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s only a minor irritant really. I’m just sick > of people ranting about how their “theoretical” > tax dollars are being spent, when many barely pay > taxes to begin with. Totally agree. I find these people to be incredibly irksome and generally dull-witted

It’s not as simple as that. Lots of government services are being cut to make room for bailouts and other stimulus, including short term tax rebates. So someone who no longer has access to chemotherapy and will now die because of it will justifiably be upset that her services were cut to keep some bankers employed.

Good point, so we have blood in our hands… :frowning: bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s not as simple as that. Lots of government > services are being cut to make room for bailouts > and other stimulus, including short term tax > rebates. So someone who no longer has access to > chemotherapy and will now die because of it will > justifiably be upset that her services were cut to > keep some bankers employed.

bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It’s not as simple as that. Lots of government > services are being cut to make room for bailouts > and other stimulus, including short term tax > rebates. So someone who no longer has access to > chemotherapy and will now die because of it will > justifiably be upset that her services were cut to > keep some bankers employed. A well functioning financial system ensures new capital is effectively allocated across industries. In healthcare, this could lead to increased funding for research and development, which in turn could lead to a cure for cancer.

But what if the system was skewed in the last few years? Does that mean we have even more blood in our hands? Dermot81 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It’s not as simple as that. Lots of government > > services are being cut to make room for > bailouts > > and other stimulus, including short term tax > > rebates. So someone who no longer has access to > > chemotherapy and will now die because of it > will > > justifiably be upset that her services were cut > to > > keep some bankers employed. > > A well functioning financial system ensures new > capital is effectively allocated across > industries. In healthcare, this could lead to > increased funding for research and development, > which in turn could lead to a cure for cancer.