....and the anger continues on the Hill: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html Hey maybe when these guys get PO'd about making only $395 k I can slide in and be underpaid at a measly $295 K..... Looks like some job openings on the Street are coming up soon! Listen...I do agree that anyone who exceeds quotas....profit targets etc. in a given year and promised certain compensation because they did so should get that compensation amount. I remain unconvinced that the huge sum of 18 billion was paid out soley to the highest achievers who returned profit to their companies. I am very unconvinced of that.
It that were true, that wouldn't be rational at all. But that is not the reason they're losing money.
Are you convinced that any of it is due to them? That was what you were arguing..... And if I am a competitor and you make an arbitrary and unwise decision to not compensate your producers, they would very quickly not be your best producers......they would be mine. Further, by process of adverse selection, the only people remaining at your firm in its time of greatest need, to help you pull it out of the ditch, are the ones I don't want...... heave ho underachievers, let's pull harder. :shock:
Again, in almost 30 years in business I have lost several employees to direct competitors because the "grass was greener". And some of then took a large account with them, presumably because that was the price of admittance for them. What happened over time in almost all cases was a. the former employee was fired by the new company as soon as he had nothing else to offer b. the stolen account came back and c. the offending company disappeared. The sum is always bigger than the parts.
I had my recent job for 23 years. I was newly fired when I took the job....not hired away with a book of business. The job I was fired from however was a good example of what you are talking about George. I abruptly left a previous employer to go to a differerent firm and it lasted all of 6 months. Not that the previous employer would have worked out in the long run but anyway the firm I went to had no loyalty to me and they must have felt I had no loyalty to them because of the way I came on board. It was nasty business all the way around and much better with my recent employer.....until when under financial pressure they showed absolutely no loyalty to me by laying me off. So be it......until we meet again. 8)
We'll just have to agree to disagree but if I'm the owner, I want my compensation policies to attract, incent and retain the best people I can find.....in a service business, they are your dominant asset. Now that we are part owners in these enterprises, I can't believe that they are not serving our best interests by holding on to their good people and implementing policies that will attract others......the likelihood of their success and our the US taxpayers eventual payback and return is far superior with good people than the underachievers that would remain under sub-optimal compensation policies endorsed for the sole purpose of some political feel good story.....it's just common sense to me fellas and yes, my 30 years in the business has provided some evidence as well.
Given the gargantuan losses on Wall Street lately maybe it's time for an overhaul anyway. There must be very few achievers not achieving near enough to overcome the losing majority.
Here's an example of the problem faced by companies who might try to rein in salaries for their top producers. AIG Awash in Cash
nobody.....but how about the guys who performed their functions in an admirable fashion, exceeding the expectations that were established for the upcoming year? Should they not get paid according the commitments that were made to them consistent with their performance? Many, many fulfilled their obligations to the company regarding their performance and I can't see the companies being well served to not honor their obligations to these employees..... Surely you don't believe that everybody was equally responsible - regardless of function and/or performance - for the debacle that developed. I just don't believe it to be in the interest of the taxpayers to decimate these companies.....it's just shooting yourself in the foot. Makes no sense
Makes no sense to pay these banker/insurance guys better...much much better... than just about any industry in the world....better than the oil industry whose banner ship Exxon just broke the record with 45 billion in profit. Man I always said that if my boss made money so would I. I was sooo right...I made money until his was in jeopardy. With that philosophy I should be in the oil business no question. I wonder just what kind of performance would earn a Wall Streeter say...$250-300,000 in a year?? I assume this may be peanuts by industry standards but if so it proves my point. Does a broker/investment manager keep his $200,000 job....but maybe with little or no bonuses when his book of business loses 5-10 million for the company or do they send him out on his ear?
No. Tough ****. They're part of a company that is on life support and they want all the oxygen. The best production worker gets laid off when the plant shuts down. He doesn't get paid because he was the best worker. The best actor gets thrown out of work with the rest of the cast when a play doesn't make it.
This just might be the most galling of all bailout-related disclosures to date: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20090201/D962O3U01.html
Didn't someone say..."financial terrorism"? :x So these "American" institutions on the receiving end of American taxpayer's dollars cannot find enough talent in this country to fill these positions? Our money is paying these foreign nationals their "earned" bonuses because the company cannot to afford to lose them? What gives here????
It's completely indefensible. On another note, I just saw a news story on FOX that Sandy Weil, the CEO of Citi, celebrated his bailout by taking his family on a vacation to Cabo on the company dime. The private jet charges alone are reported to top $80K.
He isn't the CEO - he stepped down in 2006.....as part of his retirement package, he negotiated the use of the company plane presumably in lieu of other benefits.....shame on him. :roll:
Nonsense.....I would submit to you that the vast majority of those due bonuses based upon their performance are employed by companies whose participation in the TARP was not voluntary. It was in fact crammed down their throat by Treasury. Indeed, I think it has been established that the bankers were opposed to the injection of public capital, particularly in light of the conditions imposed, preferring instead to find private sources to the extent additional capital was necessary. Now that they got that tasty little treat shoved down their throat, they can't pay people in accordance with their performance and previously agreed upon terms.....they can't practice compensation policies to attract, retain and incent good people. Now that's terrorism, in addition to incredibly short-sighted and foolish...... The "play" is still on Broadway and continues to run.....if you do fail to pay the cast, they will walk to another stage. Good luck getting your money out of that deal.....and good luck finding another cast in view of the fact that you stiffed the last one.....no doubt the brightest stars will flock to your next production. Don't confuse Fannie and Freddie with Wall Street, that's Washington, not New York.
....shame on them for hiring employees of equal qualifications at a lower wage. Shame on multi-national companies for hiring foreign nationals. What could they possibly be thinking? Let me get this straight......on the one hand you don't want to pay people money that they've already earned. In addition, you want to encourage these same companies to pay more for a function than is necessary. The next step in this logical circle jerk is to b!tch and whine when they have to charge higher prices....... :shock: .....it's just mass hysteria without common sense. It's a very popular thing to do....carry on bashers.