Obama new cause for poverty in America?

[DaShi]

Sorry, didn't mean to strike a nerve.

[KrazyHorse]

You didn't. Thanks for playing.

[Zkribbler]

You probably should. It would seem to be a sure fire way to chase the best and brightest away from these companies hurting the long term health of these companies.

If they're "the best and the brightest," why do they need taxpayers' money to keep them from going bankrupt?

It's our money they're taking. We're allowed to put restrictions on how its used. If these companies don't want it, they don't have to take it.

Is it irrational to believe that executives who piloted their companies to insolvency do not deserve performance bonuses? Is it irrational for taxpayers to be reluctant to loan money to companies who would pay these people more than $500,000 per year when they're using taxpayers' money to do so?

Let these guys and gals lead their companies back to solvency. Let them pay back their bail-out loans. Only then will the feeding trough be once again open for their gorging pleasure.

[DinoDoc]

stuff

As this is the substantively samething BeBro posted, here is my response.

[DaShi]

I'm sceptic about 1. It seems to me receiving massive boni/payments/whatever in the past didn't attract those great "bright" people who led their companies all well. Or maybe they were bright indeed, but acted irresponsibly. However, at least not in a way that avoided the current mess.

Wow, it's great that you've decided that there's some sort of obvious flaw in leadership rather than simply the inherent uncertainty associated with chaotic systems.

That's reasonable. However, **** happens even for the top paid. It's really no more fair than what happened to the lower workers who were laid off because of the economic meltdown. The difference is that these guys can afford a temporary pay cut in hard times, while they are being supported by government cheese. Trying to get their company afloat and a return to their previous salary should be more than enough incentive.

[Asher]

I worked at Lehman Brothers.

"Best and Brightest" are not the words I'd use for the executives.

Sorry, DD.

[KrazyHorse]

That's reasonable. However, **** happens even for the top paid. It's really no more fair than what happened to the lower workers who were laid off because of the economic meltdown. The difference is that these guys can afford a temporary pay cut in hard times, while they are being supported by government cheese. Trying to get their company afloat and a return to their previous salary should be more than enough incentive.

There's no such thing as fair, dude. The only real concern is about what the firm needs to do well in the future. The government is simply responding to ignorant, knee-jerk "outrage" from the public. This is NOT about helping the firms by reducing costs. This is about punishment and/or some retarded idea of "fairness".

[DaShi]

That didn't really address my point, but I do agree that it is about punishment. I'm just not going to cry over it.

[KrazyHorse]

What was your point? There was a load of nonsense about fairness and how these people can afford it (which they obviously can), then one sentence about how these guys are going to take some sort of long view about getting paid at some unspecified date in the future. Why the **** would they wait for something which is uncertain and, for many of the people affected, is well beyond their control? The top 20 non-execs (those under the thumb of this decision) at financial firms are NOT people who make firm-wide decisions. They're people who run specific departments or trading desks. They can bring in hundreds of millions and STILL see the firm fail. Why the **** would they wait around and plug away when they can quit and move down the block to half a dozen other firms?

You're doing nothing more than making semi-intelligible grunts at this point. Step up your game.

[DaShi]

So it only applies to the top 20 non-execs? Even so, they can, as you said, move to open positions that can pay them just as well at another firm, all the while claiming, "I didn't do it!" My point is, who cares? Their replacements will be pouring out of college in less than a year. The rest of us will get by without them.

[KrazyHorse]

a) That you claim that a new college grad = top 20 in pay at a major firm
b) So you're simply denying that they do anything of a value to the firm commensurate with their pay. Top-paid employees are charity cases.

[Zkribbler]

The "best and brightest" can walk down the street and get a job at another firm. The guy who gets fired to make room for him can move to a lesser quality firm, and get a job there. The guy he replaces can go find a job at an even poorer firm. But somewhere down the line is a last guy--the worst and the dumbest. All he can do, once he's fired, is to get a job teaching physics.

[DaShi]

a) That you claim that a new college grad = top 20 in pay at a major firm

Perhaps a bit of a stretch. But the point is that their are replacements out there and not so many positions.

b) So you're simply denying that they do anything of a value to the firm commensurate with their pay. Top-paid employees are charity cases.

No.

[Zkribbler]

///The top 20 non-execs (those under the thumb of this decision) at financial firms are NOT people who make firm-wide decisions.

If they're not responsible for the firms profits and losses, they shouldn't be getting the big salaries. If they ARE responsible for profits and losses, then because there are big losses, they still shouldn't be getting big salaries.

And from which of your many *******s did you pull the idea that the people subject to this law are NOT the people making the firm-wide decisions?? And from where do you get the idea that non-executives make more than $500,000/year?

[MRT144]

If they're not responsible for the firms profits and losses, they shouldn't be getting the big salaries. If they ARE responsible for profits and losses, then because there are big losses, they still shouldn't be getting big salaries.

And from which of your many *******s did you pull the idea that the people subject to this law are NOT the people making the firm-wide decisions?? And from where do you get the idea that non-executives make more than $500,000/year?

How is a profitable trader responsible for the losses of another trader. Pay regulation is stupid and punitive.