C'mon, how many really "good workers" are there? I would say at best maybe 5% of traders on Wall St. are exceptionally good at their jobs. The rest are just overpaid mooks that happened to have the family connections to get into an Ivy league school and then straight to Goldman after graduation. 95% of those jobs could be filled just as well by normal blue/white collar kids who went to an average college (of course, the system would never allow them in though).
'Salary' and 'bonus' are essentially the same thing, corporate money going to an employee. How come one(which happens to be small) is ok(unless you are all advocating state sponsored slavery) and the other so evil? Since you all agree that the employees should be paid(as I said, unless you think slavery or the government changing past contracts is a good idea) just tell me how the hell you guys know what is the 'right' amount of corporate money should go to the employees?Why you feel qualified to make this judgement? Almost nobody knows the right amount which is why you let market forces do that, even in the cases where the market was prevented from acting due too big to fail concerns because the alternative is to let barney frank and cuomo set bonuses across the board
Sorry. This is the same argument that UAW made for their management counterpart. The fact is : If your company take the bail out money ( corporate welfare check ), someone between the CEO and the janitor are at fault. Don't expect the taxpayers to distinguish which is which. If the bonus is so important, paid the taxpayer back as soon as possible to get them off your back. Then, no one gives a damn whether your bonus is $1 or 1mil.
Where are your statistics to back your drivel. Somehow, I find the ramblings of some dude on a chat board not convincing Wow. Again such heady statistics from a guy with a retail account in Boise. Where's your data. And yet....despite the very high compensation levels....most people can't get a job on Wall Street. As someone who spent countless hours interviewing candidates for various jobs from research assistants to traders, I can assure you that the vast majority of graduates from really good schools weren't recommended by me. I would say I passed one out of every ten candidates I interviewed and that's AFTER the resumes were first weeded by HR. Now, that's not to say I haven't met a shitload of morons on Wall Street. It's just that most Wall Street morons are smarter than the average person.
Again, you are mixing up the employment aspect of the business vs. the bailout. If you work 14 hours a day, should you not get pay for it? What does it have to with the fact your company is in trouble. Not every wall streeters make 6-7 figures and sit behind a desk and causing the big losses at the banks. Your mind is corrupted by the media. It's like when I ask what people think about Africa, they think of lions and Bushmen. Never a big city like Johannesburg.
Fine, then don't give them any bailout at all. That's my preferred option. Why should wealth be confiscated from people who actually know how to create it to be poured down a wealth destroying toilet? BUT....if you're going to bail the companies out, you shouldn't ensure that anyone worth keeping will leave because they're underpaid relative to what they can earn elsewhere. If they leave, then the firm will be in even more trouble later and will require ANOTHER bailout. If you want the money to be paid back to the taxpayer (it won't - congress will find a way to piss it away), then don't scare off the wealth producers in the company. Get rid of the excess baggage and pay the producers to stay. I see your problem with this. But, ultimately, I think your problem is with the bailout, not Wall Street comps. It's the taxpayer subsidy that creates this problem. Without it, the firm fails and the producers find jobs at stronger and better firms and the taxpayer isn't held at gunpoint to pay for Stan's, John's and Richard's fuck ups.
When your business is losing money, you have 3 option : 1) cut expense 2) sell the business 3) close it down For bail out firms, the MAXIMUM 'right" amount of company money goes to employee is : Revenue - fixed cost/expense - check to government - employee cost = 0. IE, if your firm is losing money, you need to cut employee or cost. IE, cut bonus, or personel. If you have extra money to pay bonus, you better can show profit next quarter.
Correct, but they took the money and they took a lot! 700B of them. Yes, you should paid employee fairly and earn a profit. If you can't earn a profit, then you can't afford your employees. Let alone bonus. You are correct. My problem is with the bailout. Any banks or wall street comps which are healthy are saints right now. I sincerely wish they do VERY well in the future and kick BAC, C, chase to the dirt.
I'm getting my bonus in a week. This was only because I signed back in Feb that I wouldn't leave the company (and my company is actually in TX...not nyc) before the end of the year! There are probably others in that similar situation. But there is only around 12 of the 70 total peeps getting anything...
You're so full of shit your eyes are brown. I've met many people that work on Wall Street, in a variety of positions, including managerial ones, and brother, go sell your bullshit somewhere else. It's always the insiders who are trying to peddle the bullshit about 'competent' and 'outstanding' the people they 'work with' or 'interview' are. Incompetency on a grand scale - that's what 'Wall Street' is, where 99%+ of 'professionals' get their asses whipped by simple indexing. Shit, Long Term Capital Management had 'nuclear physicists' on the payroll. and busted because of incompetent risk management. I'm sure those guys were intelligent and they certainly were intelligent - competent investors deserving high compensation they obviously were not. Save your bullshit for your next interview. http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/genius_fails.html