I am impressed.

[droski]

Before I launch into a response... have you ever been a government employee?

yes.

 

[DC Vol]

no i'm saying that your statement that the top employees who ran the company int he ground were getting big payouts was ridiculous.

jesus couldn't have stopped merrill from going under when thain took over.

I agree. Thain was basically the First Officer on the Titanic if Captain Smith had committed suicide 10 seconds before hitting the iceberg.


What Thain did after hitting the iceberg was kick all of the passengers off of lifeboats and take care of himself and a select few officers while everyone else froze to death.

 

[wbailey7]

So, if you had money invested in Merrill, and they tanked, but they first-and-foremost made sure to take care of the top 4 that guided that ship straight into an iceberg with a combined $121,000,000 in "farewell money"... you wouldn't be slightly pissed?

Or are you just being obstinate?

Obviously you had a little trouble reading my post. I said that it's not the extreme percentage that bothers me, it's the government 'picking and choosing' who it's going to tax at that rate.

And I really hope you don't believe that it starts and stops with this group of people.

 

[droski]

Obviously you had a little trouble reading my post. I said that it's not the extreme percentage that bothers me, it's the government 'picking and choosing' who it's going to tax at that rate.

And I really hope you don't believe that it starts and stops with this group of people.

agreed. i fail to see why the tax is only on those making $250k or over. if it is truly a ridiculous payment and shouldnt' be paid, why should anyone be getting it? why include the salary provision if this ISN'T robin hood behavior?

 

[rjd970]

Droski, you have said the guys in the derivatives division shouldn't be getting bonuses anyway, yet you are on here defending bonuses as deferred compensation. Do they deserve deferred compensation?

 

[droski]

Droski, you have said the guys in the derivatives division shouldn't be getting bonuses anyway, yet you are on here defending bonuses as deferred compensation. Do they deserve deferred compensation?

when did i say they shouldnt' be getting bonuses? if they are valuable employees who generate revenue for the company i have zero problem with them getting a bonus. i have no idea what % of the people getting bonuses "deserve" it or not.

 

[DC Vol]

agreed. i fail to see why the tax is only on those making $250k or over. if it is truly a ridiculous payment and shouldnt' be paid, why should anyone be getting it? why include the salary provision if this ISN'T robin hood behavior?

A federal income tax is quite a bit different than federal (taxpayer provisioned) bailout money.


I see a very very fine difference in-between them.

 

[rjd970]

when did i say they shouldnt' be getting bonuses? if they are valuable employees who generate revenue for the company i have zero problem with them getting a bonus.

umm...you said it on March 16th, somewhere around 2:30 central time.

Droksi "Obama tells Geithner to block AIG bonuses" Thread 3/16/2009 post #5

the guys in the derivatives division absolutely shouldn't be getting bonuses. i'm sure there are many producers in the insurance division that will go to a competitor immediately without some sort of bonus.

but, but, it is "deferred compensation" and "retention packages", no?

 

[droski]

umm...you said it on March 16th, somewhere around 1:30 central time.



but, but, it is "deferred compensation" and "retention packages", no?

i should have specified i meant the people in the derivatives division that lost the money. "derivatives" can mean almost anything.

 

[rjd970]

i should have specified i meant the people in the derivatives division that lost the money. "derivatives" can mean almost anything.

But the ones that lost money were fired long ago, right? That is what we have been hearing, and the bonuses are being paid out now.

 

[DC Vol]

when did i say they shouldnt' be getting bonuses? if they are valuable employees who generate revenue for the company i have zero problem with them getting a bonus. i have no idea what % of the people getting bonuses "deserve" it or not.

You don't think they should be given a baseline salary and then be given their bonus when they've done something to deserve it?


Simply put your salary is for the position. Bonus is for the performance.

Do you not think that is fair?

-Good employee takes home a lucrative salary. -Average employee takes salary home and a pay raise to keep his income competitive.
-Bad employee gets shown the door.

What do you feel, droski, would be fair compensation for them, given the deep hole they've dug themselves into?

 

[droski]

But the ones that lost money were fired long ago, right? That is what we have been hearing, and the bonuses are being paid out now.

apparently they've kept some of the traders to help unwind the trades. the executives are long gone.

You don't think they should be given a baseline salary and then be given their bonus when they've done something to deserve it?


Simply put your salary is for the position. Bonus is for the performance.

Do you not think that is fair?

-Good employee takes home a lucrative salary. -Average employee takes salary home and a pay raise to keep his income competitive.
-Bad employee gets shown the door.

What do you feel, droski, would be fair compensation for them, given the deep hole they've dug themselves into?

lots of these employees i'm sure are good employees and deserve the bonus for performance. that is my point.

 

[rjd970]

You don't think they should be given a baseline salary and then be given their bonus when they've done something to deserve it?


Simply put your salary is for the position. Bonus is for the performance.

Do you not think that is fair?

-Good employee takes home a lucrative salary. -Average employee takes salary home and a pay raise to keep his income competitive.
-Bad employee gets shown the door.

What do you feel, droski, would be fair compensation for them, given the deep hole they've dug themselves into?

You have got to remember DC, this isn't "bonuses" anymore, despite what they are actually called. These are "retention packages" and "deferred compensation" and "commission". You need to keep up to date on the smoke and mirrors.

 

[DC Vol]

lots of these employees i'm sure are good employees and deserve the bonus for performance. that is my point.

Do you believe that the US taxpayer rationally owes them their bonuses at this junction? Even though said bonuses are being paid to employees (rather directly responsible or not) to corporate entities that saw inexorable losses?


Again, if they turn their companies around they absolutely deserve every cent of a large bonus. Until then? They're at their eventual employers mercy:
the US Government/taxpayer.

Be that as it may.

 

[rjd970]

apparently they've kept some of the traders to help unwind the trades. the executives are long gone.

I see. So do these traders deserve their "deferred compensation"?

And this idea that the only ones that can diffuse the bomb are the ones that created it is crap. You execute the bombmaker and call in the bomb squad, giving them whatever resources are needed.

 

[DC Vol]

You have got to remember DC, this isn't "bonuses" anymore, despite what they are actually called. These are "retention packages" and "deferred compensation" and "commission". You need to keep up to date on the smoke and mirrors.

No, I'll just keep on calling it what it is.

 

[DC Vol]

I see. So do these traders deserve their "deferred compensation".

And this idea that the only ones that can diffuse the bomb are the ones that created it is crap. You execute the bombmaker and call in the bomb squad, giving them whatever resources are needed.

But the problem remains that no self-respecting VP is going to take a pay hit and work for $250,000 and be scrutinized.

 

[T-TownVol]

I see. So do these traders deserve their "deferred compensation".

And this idea that the only ones that can diffuse the bomb are the ones that created it is crap. You execute the bombmaker and call in the bomb squad, giving them whatever resources are needed.

isn't there another name for this.....anyone?

 

[droski]

Do you believe that the US taxpayer rationally owes them their bonuses at this junction? Even though said bonuses are being paid to employees (rather directly responsible or not) to corporate entities that saw inexorable losses?


Again, if they turn their companies around they absolutely deserve every cent of a large bonus. Until then? They're at their eventual employers mercy:
the US Government/taxpayer.

Be that as it may.

we are getting in a circular argument here.

The US taxpayer wants these people to stay so that AIG continues as an operating unit and potentially can pay back the money and that they will get an attractive return on their investment in the common stock. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of AIG divisions made money last year.

They aren't going to be the people "turning the company around." They are the ones keeping it afloat. The ones keeping the gov't from shelling out more billions.

 

[droski]

I see. So do these traders deserve their "deferred compensation"?

Nope. The rest of the people do.

 

[volinbham]

You don't think they should be given a baseline salary and then be given their bonus when they've done something to deserve it?


Simply put your salary is for the position. Bonus is for the performance.

You have got to remember DC, this isn't "bonuses" anymore, despite what they are actually called. These are "retention packages" and "deferred compensation" and "commission". You need to keep up to date on the smoke and mirrors.

You can mock the distinctions all you like. However, just because you see bonuses in this manner doesn't mean that's how this industry or company views bonuses.

It's like complaining that international basketball has too wide a lane and it should be the same width from baseline to foul line because that's how you view the paint.

You are arguing what ought to be in your world vs. what actually is in this world. It's fine in theory but wrong in application.

 

[DC Vol]

You can mock the distinctions all you like. However, just because you see bonuses in this manner doesn't mean that's how this industry or company views bonuses.

It's like complaining that international basketball has too wide a lane and it should be the same width from baseline to foul line because that's how you view the paint.

You are arguing what ought to be in your world vs. what actually is in this world. It's fine in theory but wrong in application.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you teach at UAB, right?

 

[rjd970]

You can mock the distinctions all you like. However, just because you see bonuses in this manner doesn't mean that's how this industry or company views bonuses.

It's like complaining that international basketball has too wide a lane and it should be the same width from baseline to foul line because that's how you view the paint.

You are arguing what ought to be in your world vs. what actually is in this world. It's fine in theory but wrong in application.

Whatever you want to call these payments, some of them simply aren't justified, no matter how they are being painted. And the outrage is justified, when unemployment is high, people are having to cut back, being laid off, forgoing their bonuses and raises...and then seeing the ridiculous amounts being paid to the employees of these companies...funded by their tax dollars...who's company was responsible for this mess to begin with. Even Droski is finally saying at least some of these people don't deserve their "whatever we are calling it now" money.

And the government should be the focus of much of this outrage as well. As far as I am concerned, they should be forgoing their automatic raises until they have earned it too.

This circus needs to end somewhere.

 

[volinbham]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you teach at UAB, right?

Yes.

 

[volinbham]

Whatever you want to call these payments, some of them simply aren't justified, no matter how they are being painted. And the outrage is justified, when unemployment is high, people are having to cut back, being laid off, forgoing their bonuses and raises...and then seeing the ridiculous amounts being paid to the employees of these companies...funded by their tax dollars...who's company was responsible for this mess to begin with. Even Droski is finally saying at least some of these people don't deserve their "whatever we are calling it now" money.

And the government should be the focus of much of this outrage as well. As far as I am concerned, they should be forgoing their automatic raises until they have earned it too.

This circus needs to end somewhere.

Some aren't justified but it's not because they are called "bonuses". That's my point - a lot of the outrage is based on a misunderstanding of the real structure of the compensation.

I'm sure some folks at Freddie/Fannie (or insert your favorite TARP recipient) didn't "deserve" the pay they received in whatever form it came in. It's just the use of the word "bonus" creates heightened furor - I would say that Droski, BPV and myself are all suggesting that the word bonus is a red herring.