What they are you talking about? Again, the whole bonus fight revolves around firms wanting to hand out bonuses because they think they will lose talent if they don't. Trading (stocks, commodities, whatever) is inherently risky.
They don't seem that smart to me. This guy Michael Lewis seems to know what's going on, though. After reading this, I don't see the need for multimillion dollar bonuses. Bonuses were being given to guys to blow up their companies. http://www.portfolio.com/news-marke...folio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom
Nope. But again, they have a lower base then say, the average person who generates as much revenue for their companies. But again, traders aren't the only folks in a bank, and definitely not the only ones whose pay relies on their bonus (as far as them choosing to remain at that company).
^Proponents are claiming that these brokers and bankers are slaves to their 60k salaries when those with Ivy League degrees, the smartest and hardworking, are accepting these salaries knowing that the bonuses will be wildly disproportionate to performance and far better than the salaries of other career paths. I have no doubts that there are brokers who work well over the average work week at the expense of their health and lifestyle. So do many other people in other careers who don't earn more than a 100k. If the pay was so terrible and degrading, college students would start selecting a different field.
Dude, who said anything like that?? A) Some banks pay you less in a base salary, with the hopes of getting a higher bonus if the company has a good year. The employee is taking the risk of hitting big or missing big. B) If the employee misses big, he may be inclined to go work somewhere with a higher base, especially in a bad economy. The only reason he is "working for less" (base pay) is to take the chance of making more via his bonus. Eliminate that and you eliminate part of the reason that he chose that job. C) Banks don't want to lose some of their employees. D) Banks fight to pay them bonuses, knowing they will lose some talent if they don't. No one said the pay was degrading or terrible. The base just isn't enticing enough to keep them in that field. No one is saying feel sorry for the employee, since he took the risk of getting no bonus. No one is saying feel sorry for the bank if they lose employees, but can anyone blame them for doing everything in their power to keep them?
I haven't been rewarded this year, and my business unit had record profits in 2008. Yet, I made less $$ this year than I did last year. I'm not saying woe to me...just saying these claims of "being rewarded either way" are quite invalid.
Actually I'm wondering which line your moronic ass and your bed mate Sammy have problems with. And I'm not surprised you can't even come up with a half-assed response. In either the case of the TARP or welfare, somebody screwed up while the rest picks up the bill. No? Let's re-focus. Welfare/food stamps, you lost YOUR job/can't pay YOUR bill, the government gives you a check. Nope, no socializing your personal costs at all. I'm no socialist. Beside, who needs socialism when you can have capitalism... American style.
Except these bonuses are not retention payments. By all accounts, the companies had a dismal year. Not just down -- but so dreadfully down that they need government help to survive. And so is the nature of variable pay. You can win...OR you can lose. And often it's not your fault. Besides....when deciding to stay..or not...most will look to future potential. Not current pay. There were some pretty heavy extrenuating circumstances this year when dishing out bonuses. The proposed bonuses do little to keep people if there are better opportunities elsewhere. I suspect they'll have to revamp their compensation schemes to keep the top guys anyway. But nobody says -- next year I can make more elsewhere -- but I'm staying here because they paid me well in 2008.
By the same token I could say Bob Joe had a dismay year. He lost his job and could no longer pay for food and now needs government aid just to get by. This and the TARP both signifies a distribution of wealth from one party, namely you the taxpayer, to somebody else. And Wall Streeters did lose. They have their base pay AND bonuses slashed.
As soon as the Wall Street moguls need help buying government cheese to keep from starving, or help buying second hand clothes for their children to go to school you might have something. Welfare exists to help people who have nothing to squeak by, not to help people with a lot get a lot more. That is why your bizarre comments are so absurd. It's like imagining some dude in an Armani suit on the street corner with a sign saying, "Brother, can you spare $100,000?". Absurd. There is a moral obligation to keep people clothed and not starving. There is no moral obligation to keep the richest 5% of the population subsidized in the refined, expensive lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. I apologize for not spelling it out earlier, as I wrongly credited you with not being quite so dense that it would be necessary. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MZHEkU__Ijw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MZHEkU__Ijw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Let's quit giving ALL welfare. Most of that money would come from corporate welfare and not low-income welfare. Welfare for individuals is only a small fraction of the cost of corporate welfare.
Wrong. I just forgot that you are stupid enough to not see the difference between two. Whether it is keeping on giving out bonuses or giving out food, you are otherwise subsidizing for a standard of living the recipient wouldn't otherwise enjoy. You know the only difference between the two? Wall Street only ask for handouts once every two decades or so whereas welfare/food stamps is a constant stream, a constant burden. As a matter of fact, much of welfare and all forms of aid is often largely generated by taxation of the "fat cats," people whom you loathes so much, in a transfer of wealth from which they receive no benefit. It doesn't stop there either. Fannie and Freddie's management were getting chewed left and right and rightfully so. But what everyone neglected to mention is that they never were viable business models. Just think about it. But of course everybody and their mother had to have the "American Dream," the house with white picket fence and dog. So what happened? Socialize the cost with something called GSE's. So that despite the lack of creditworthiness, the US enjoys over 200 basis point lower mortgage rates than just north of the border in Canada, where they don't even have mortgages agreements over 10 years. Moral obligation? I'm always somewhat dumbfounded when one can say that with a straight face. Joe worked hard. He went through a good college. Made the right choices in life (had a bit of luck as well). Got a good job, steady income, nice house, etc. He earns much more than the average person because he is a highly educated individual who works really really hard in a highly demanded profession. As a reward for his success he now has the "obligation" to hand out cash to somebody who didn't. Oh, and he also is hated for his success, despite his involuntary monetary "contributions." You'd think that the recipients of his "aid" money would be grateful. You know what, if I was Joe and I'm gonna be hated any ways, I'd keep my money, the poor be damned.
You are marvelously absurd. Genuinely, I thought that sort of Social Darwinian philosophy went out with 1920's robber barons. You are a wonderfully amusing anachronism. You might benefit from an extended screening of the films of Frank Capra. They were made, way back when, to speak exactly to that antiquated philosophy, along with other, similar discredited corollaries like eugenics and technocracy.
Actually, in a way they are. Banks believe that their employees will leave if they receive no bonus...to places where they can make more $$. You are absolutely right. Again, no one is saying woe to the person receiving less/no bonus. What I'm saying is banks feel they will lose some talent if they don't pay them, so it's smart for them to fight for the right to give bonuses. Future potential may look better at one bank that isn't in as much trouble as say, one that just got acquired. The future doesn't look that bright regardless, so going for a higher base with a smaller bonus may be appealing to some. And IMO, I would say most folks care about the present a lot more than they do about the future. That's the American way, and one of the reasons we are in the mess we are today. That also depends on the person. Some employees appreciate their firms still giving them a bonus in a dowm year, even when they take heat for it. Being appreciated goes a long way....
