It’s all semantics. There’s a big difference between saying (1) “my bonus is down 50% this year” and (2) “my comp is down 50% this year”. To the average joe the first phrase will invoke anger over the fact that you got a bonus to begin with. However, the second phrase will most likely invoke a lot more sympathy since in any other industry a 50% reduction in salary is unheard of.
I think the whole problem started with Hank Paulson writing blank checks(on behalf of the taxpayers, I might add) to all these firms. As a taxpayer, I want to lend money towards saving the financial institutions and by extension the economy; but not without distributing the pain across all stakeholders(taxpayers, current shareholders, bondholders and employees). Its time for shared sacrifices. Its hard to sell regular boom-time bonuses to the taxpayers in this environment. You may call them laymans, fools, whatever. But, they own the majority of the firms now and the executives and employees are answerable to them. Mr. Paulson should have had a clause requiring TARP-recieving firms(ML, AIG,…) to postpone majority of all bonuses across all divisions to future years. 30% now, 30% next year and 40% the year after that or something along those lines. If that required new contracts, so be it. If anybody had a problem with that, they should take it up in the courts. Mr. Paulson was just too generous with the taxpayers money.
[original post removed]
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ShouldBeWorking Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We should all be making $250,000 max. Anything > > over that amount should go directly to the > poor. > > As currently a non-extremist and neither > registered as Democrat or Republican - I would > take up arms (and hope others would to) to defend > America and our Constitution from domestic enemies > if our country ever turned into a communist nation > like the one you want (if you are serious). > > And if I couldn’t succeed, I’d rather the world > end in a nuclear holocaust - would be a better > ending for humanity than a communist dystopia. dude, you’re f*cked id rather they broke and still breathing then rich and dead
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ShouldBeWorking Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > We should all be making $250,000 max. Anything > > over that amount should go directly to the > poor. > > As currently a non-extremist and neither > registered as Democrat or Republican - I would > take up arms (and hope others would to) to defend > America and our Constitution from domestic enemies > if our country ever turned into a communist nation > like the one you want (if you are serious). > > And if I couldn’t succeed, I’d rather the world > end in a nuclear holocaust - would be a better > ending for humanity than a communist dystopia. dude, you’re f*cked id rather be broke and still breathing then rich and dead
This isn’t a statement about being broke or not - that is totally irrelevant to my thinking here. This is a statement about asserting your right to live freely. I’d rather be dead (and ensure the oppressors are too) than have someone tell me how to think and move my arms and legs like in a communist dystopia - because the latter is not really living.
ancientmtk Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am curious about why couldn’t AIG just hire ppl > to unwind the business and not pay any bonuses. > > Seems like the word “bonus” is now a taboo that > should be shunned upon. At this point, it can only hire consultants. Do you think they are cheap (i mean, the really capable ones who knows the business)? they are freaking expensive!!!