NationStates Jolt Archive

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html):
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One day after President Barack Obama ripped Wall Street executives for their "shameful" decision to hand out $18 billion in bonuses in 2008, Congress may finally have had enough.

An angry U.S. senator introduced legislation Friday to cap compensation for employees of any company that accepts federal bailout money. Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.

Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.

"We have a bunch of idiots on Wall Street that are kicking sand in the face of the American taxpayer," an enraged McCaskill said on the floor of the Senate. "They don't get it. These people are idiots. You can't use taxpayer money to pay out $18 billion in bonuses."

McCaskill's proposed compensation limit would cover salaries, bonuses and stock options.

On Thursday, Obama said the prospect that some of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout could end up paying for bonuses to managers of struggling financial institutions was "shameful."

The president said it was the "height of irresponsibility" for executives to pay bonuses when their companies were asking for help from Washington.

"The American people understand we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of, but they don't like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole even as they're being asked to fill it up," Obama added.

McCaskill's proposal comes three days after struggling banking giant Citigroup -- which has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program -- reversed plans to accept delivery of a new $42 million corporate jet. The company changed its mind under Treasury Department prodding.

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on Friday defended corporate bonuses, saying that cutting them also means slashing jobs in the Big Apple.

"If you somehow take that bonus out of the economy, it really will create unemployment," he said on CNN's "American Morning." "It means less spending in restaurants, less spending in department stores, so everything has an impact."

Much as I loathe the irresponsible way in which the money was used I have to say this is exactly what they ought of expected. They passed out cash without conditions, of course they lined their own pockets first.

http://www.superherotimes.com/news/images/ElseworldsRedSonSupermanFig.jpg

lol

Not gonna help.

Not gonna help.

No it's not. No good to try to cap their salaries like that. They'll find a way around it. It's not like you can force them to not make stupid decisions five to ten years ago now.

Giuliani continues to be a dick

Thats just pathetic, but not unexpected...But, you know, what are you going to do? Hand them billions of dollars and expect them to you know, suddenly morph into honorable people?

No it's not. No good to try to cap their salaries like that. They'll find a way around it. It's not like you can force them to not make stupid decisions five to ten years ago now.

And it will drive some of the best managers to companies who aren't in trouble.

Stupid of the execs of any company that's had a bail out to try it on in the first place, they must have known the govt would go for them, as it makes them look bad. The idea is fundamentally sound though. Why should a director be permitted to take more money than a head of state? A very f*cked up situation.

Dear old RG, meanwhile, is so sweet and innocent. People with that kind of money won't spend more in town just becuse they have a few million extra bonuses, there is only so much you can buy in Macey's. It will go straight out of the country to some dubious Caribbean tax "haven".

Why should a director be permitted to take more money than a head of state? A very f*cked up situation.
No, the actual question is: why shouldn't he be getting more money? How does it even remotely matter?

Dear old RG, meanwhile, is so sweet and innocent. People with that kind of money won't spend more in town just becuse they have a few million extra bonuses, there is only so much you can buy in Macey's. It will go straight out of the country to some dubious Caribbean tax "haven".
And just stay there for all eternity? Watch London and NY die over the next two years, just because of a lack of bonus pay and fewer bankers paying taxes.

A lot of those bonuses were written in contractually prior to the start of the financial crisis so there isn't anything companies could do about them; if they can pay them, they have to pay them. If you tried to take them away, the cost of lawsuits would be far greater than the amounts paid out in bonuses. Don't forget, either, that a lot of those bonuses aren't gigantic multi-million dollar pay packages; they're sizable, sure, but for a lot of people they are still a crucial part of their annual income, sometimes as much as 40-50% depending on how they're compensated. Not to mention, of course, those bonuses will be spent on goods and services so it's not like they're disappearing down the drain. Hell, comparatively speaking, those bonuses will probably have a greater effect on the economy because they'll actually be spent.

Good luck getting someone to bust their ass 80 hours per week in exchange for a 50% pay cut...one of the things that pisses me off is that people seem to think that working on Wall Street is some kind of Candyland where everyone sits on their asses all day and just lets the money roll in without doing any kind of real work whatsoever. It is intense work that is demanding physically, mentally, and emotionally and is in fact one of the most difficult positions in any field whatsoever, far moreso than screwing a bolt on a car in some assembly line, but nobody ever singles out the automotive workers for their gigantic compensation packages. There's a reason why most people don't spend more than several years working on the Street in a brokerage; they either succeed and go on to bigger and better things or fail and fall back to something less demanding.

Never mind the fact that their real money is in capital gains. This is exactly one thing: a smokescreen that causes supporters to cheer and ignore capital gains and the opposition to rant and rave about socialism like slobbering, incompetent beasts.

Never mind the fact that their real money is in capital gains. This is exactly one thing: a smokescreen that causes supporters to cheer and ignore capital gains and the opposition to rant and rave about socialism like slobbering, incompetent beasts.

Given that Warren Buffet is a huge supporter of the capital gains tax you'd think more people might listen to him considering, you know, he is one of the most successful businessmen who has ever lived. Personally, I'd like to see a few different taxes on capital gains and currency trading in exchange for the elimination of the AMT and estate tax. Let people build wealth and then skim off a portion of what they make as it's accrued to finance the further growth of the country's fundamental wealth-driving components, our government's educational, research and physical infrastructure.

good thing, too.

No, the actual question is: why shouldn't he be getting more money? How does it even remotely matter?

I assume it matters because the taxpayers see their money being used to give bonuses to the executives or brokers of flagging institutions. Given the relative unpopularity of the bailout in the first place giving out these bonuses does not make a case for popular support.

Good luck getting someone to bust their ass 80 hours per week in exchange for a 50% pay cut...one of the things that pisses me off is that people seem to think that working on Wall Street is some kind of Candyland where everyone sits on their asses all day and just lets the money roll in without doing any kind of real work whatsoever. It is intense work that is demanding physically, mentally, and emotionally and is in fact one of the most difficult positions in any field whatsoever, far moreso than screwing a bolt on a car in some assembly line, but nobody ever singles out the automotive workers for their gigantic compensation packages. There's a reason why most people don't spend more than several years working on the Street in a brokerage; they either succeed and go on to bigger and better things or fail and fall back to something less demanding.

Most people are probably thinking about stagnating living standards and hard economic times when during the last expansion much to most of the economic growth increased the wealth already rich. I assume that other people work 80 hour work weeks that are demanding and yet aren't compensated quite so lavishly.

Most people are probably thinking about stagnating living standards and hard economic times when during the last expansion much to most of the economic growth increased the wealth already rich. I assume that other people work 80 hour work weeks that are demanding and yet aren't compensated quite so lavishly.

That doesn't make it right to punish the vast majority of these people whose bonuses provide a crucial part of their income. Punishing them won't make the economy turn around nor will it make banks start lending ($18.4 billion is a laughable sum compared to the amount of capital in the financial markets) it will only worsen economic conditions with no prospect of improvement. Like anything, their compensation is based upon what these companies were willing to pay for their work; if you put in the effort to get a degree and have the skills and willingness to work in this industry, you deserve to reap the benefits.

If anything, the simple truth is that this $18.4 billion in bonuses is the most direct and most effective part of the "stimulus" money handed out to banks to date...the rest of the money is just plain not going in to the financial system whereas the amounts given out as bonuses are being spent and invested. If we were smart, we would have never even considered giving banks money... let the inept bastards fail and spend it instead on projects and tax cuts that will have real economic effects.

That doesn't make it right to punish the vast majority of these people whose bonuses provide a crucial part of their income. Punishing them won't make the economy turn around nor will it make banks start lending ($18.4 billion is a laughable sum compared to the amount of capital in the financial markets) it will only worsen economic conditions with no prospect of improvement. Like anything, their compensation is based upon what these companies were willing to pay for their work; if you put in the effort to get a degree and have the skills and willingness to work in this industry, you deserve to reap the benefits.

If anything, the simple truth is that this $18.4 billion in bonuses is the most direct and most effective part of the "stimulus" money handed out to banks to date...the rest of the money is just plain not going in to the financial system whereas the amounts given out as bonuses are being spent and invested. If we were smart, we would have never even considered giving banks money... let the inept bastards fail and spend it instead on projects and tax cuts that will have real economic effects.

I don't see how saving the brokers jobs is punishment when you seem to admit that without the bail-out the companies/banks/brokerages they worked for would have failed meaning no bonuses and no salary.

Because I am always against wasting time passing legistlation that is gaunteed to do nothing, I am against this.

Isn't it unsurprisingly ironic and hypocritical that the people who bitch the most about welfare recepients using their money on extravagant waste are cricket chirp quiet when companies like AIG do the exact same thing on a much larger level and volume?

No, the actual question is: why shouldn't he be getting more money? How does it even remotely matter?

It's symbolically important. The HOS has the central role in any nation, ergo it follows his renumeration should reflect this. It looks more than pathetic if your HOS arrives with all the splendour of your nation, which some private guy easily outshines. It's too much like the UK's wonderful contribution to the closing of the Olympics...the moment when the nation collectively grimaces in embarrassment and flicks channels when you realise the Chinese just totally and utterly pwned you.

And just stay there for all eternity? Watch London and NY die over the next two years, just because of a lack of bonus pay and fewer bankers paying taxes.

Nope. One day it pays for baby banker to get a decent private education and to ease his way into Oxbridge/Yale/Harvard where they will make the required links (and may even do some work, though thats pretty much optional) to see them into their own career in the same line, a path facilitated by more of this money... and so the route continues. It will also oil important political wheels both for oneself and baby. This is what money is for.

The luxuries account for relatively little of the expenditure. For a salary of either £20m or £30m, £50,000 of diamonds is still disposable money,and seriously big money items are beyond the reach of executives anyway. Orders for private jumbos and 180ft cruisers are more likely to affected by oil and/or war than city bonuses.

Isn't it unsurprisingly ironic and hypocritical that the people who bitch the most about welfare recepients using their money on extravagant waste are cricket chirp quiet when companies like AIG do the exact same thing on a much larger level and volume?

The thing is, Vetalia did say these are contractually obligated, and if they are, he may in fact be correct that huge legal fees will end up using more money than just paying out the contract would.

I'm all for not wasting money on bonuses like this, but if it's a choice between this and spending even more on legal fees and potentially dragging things down...

Vetalia: The problem with what you're suggesting is that you're giving the impression these people are working this hard just to keep themselves above the poverty line or something. They're not. We're talking the top 5% of the country here, people who don't NEED to work this hard to try and live a decent life. I'm finding it very hard to find any sympathy for them.

Keep in mind that >99% of the employees won't be affected by that -- the few that will are the ones that had to beg Washington for money because they invested in the Ford Edsel, Enron, and Duke Nukem Forever over and over again. For reference, one of my relatives was a VP at a major (100,000+ employees) company until she retired, and didn't make anywhere near $400,000.

The idea of tax funded bailouts going to pay the bonuses of failed bankers & financiers is pretty galling.

I don't see how saving the brokers jobs is punishment when you seem to admit that without the bail-out the companies/banks/brokerages they worked for would have failed meaning no bonuses and no salary.

It's punishment when you take away the bonuses they were rightfully promised as part of their employment. If I agree to bust my ass in exchange for receiving a bonus if I meet my goals, it's nothing more than punishing me if the government decides to take away my bonuses because they feel it's somehow a waste of money. Doing that is nothing less than short-changing employees even more than they already have been in the name of "cost-cutting" and "downsizing".

Those people deserve that money...it's easy to criticize them and demand they give up their money when you're not the one being targeted. Imagine the outcry that would happen if steelworkers or autoworkers were forced to give up their benefits on the same scale as would happen if these bonuses were eliminated. We'd be talking up to a 50% pay and benefits cut for some of these people employees by these firms...if the UAW or AFL-CIO agreed to those kinds of cuts for workers at the Big Three, we wouldn't even need to bail out the automakers because they would be profitable overnight.

Vetalia: The problem with what you're suggesting is that you're giving the impression these people are working this hard just to keep themselves above the poverty line or something. They're not. We're talking the top 5% of the country here, people who don't NEED to work this hard to try and live a decent life. I'm finding it very hard to find any sympathy for them.

Need is highly relative. Would you be willing to accept a 30-50% decline in your standard of living because the government decided you don't deserve a bonus this year? It might be easy to discuss giving up that money from our standpoint but for a person who worked very hard their entire lives to get to this level and this kind of lifestyle, seeing it evaporate because a bunch of hypocritical, self-righteous Congressmen that earn as much or even more as these Street workers decided they don't deserve it is pretty galling. What's even worse is that some of them, like Biden, Kerry or Kennedy are easily pulling in huge annual incomes and yet seem unwilling to give up any of it to help the economy.

Vetalia: The problem with what you're suggesting is that you're giving the impression these people are working this hard just to keep themselves above the poverty line or something. They're not. We're talking the top 5% of the country here, people who don't NEED to work this hard to try and live a decent life. I'm finding it very hard to find any sympathy for them.

Well I need my money. It either gets used properly, wrecking weak companies, or I spend it on valuable European imports.

Also, you totally fail at economics by thinking what you are thinking. Colarado is not Mississippi &c. Plus wages don't support prices in the US. Being in the top five percent is not super awesome in general.

It's punishment when you take away the bonuses they were rightfully promised as part of their employment. If I agree to bust my ass in exchange for receiving a bonus if I meet my goals, it's nothing more than punishing me if the government decides to take away my bonuses because they feel it's somehow a waste of money. Doing that is nothing less than short-changing employees even more than they already have been in the name of "cost-cutting" and "downsizing".

Those people deserve that money...

They do, do they? Despite having been involved in failed banks?

If the CEO of company X wants his millions, he better fucking earn it, not take the money out of funds meant to ensure his company survives. They can get all the money they want when they finally start actually getting money on thier own; its perfectly fair of the government to start placing conditions on these people. They are being irresponsible... still... again...

Watch London and NY die over the next two years, just because of a lack of bonus pay and fewer bankers paying taxes.
Bonuses are a vital part of the economy now?

That doesn't make it right to punish the vast majority of these people whose bonuses provide a crucial part of their income.
Are you suggesting these folks couldn't survive without their bonuses?

Come now, gents.

This being said, I'd prefer that those who are in the position to be awarded/award themselves fat bonuses had the moral character to forego these extravagances, rather than be slapped on the ass by the State.

If these banks want taxpayers' money thrown at them, then it's entirely fair that some conditions are attached to that. I don't see why taxpayers should fund lavish bonuses, all that's doing is rewarding faliure.

They aren't banning ALL bonuses - just those that push income over $400,000/year.

My generation gets to clean up this mess. I get to go to college at the most difficult time I possibley could. It's wonderful.

Is anyone bothering to look at what this is doing to inflation or where the concentration of wealth is going to? The concentration of wealth on these bailout companies scares me. Even if they were using the money exactly how we want them to, how long would it take for the money to get back to "us"? Us, being the students; the future workers of this country.

Getting into college just keeps getting harder. Everyone knows it's true that they don't give a damn about how much I want to help the world when I'm out in it, they care about sucking every penny out of me until they've crushed my spirit enough that I'm just as cynical about the world as I really should be.

You want to help the future economy, let's start putting our money where it really counts in the long run; education. It's about time we stop looking so shallowly into our future.

Bonuses are a vital part of the economy now?
In those cities, they are. Ask Kat, she's from NYC. She'll have noticed how the local budget is going down the toilet.

In those cities, they are. Ask Kat, she's from NYC. She'll have noticed how the local budget is going down the toilet.
Specifically because of a lack of bonuses?

You seem to be saying that they're a backbone, or at least an important vertebrae, of the (US) economy. Are you?

Are you suggesting these folks couldn't survive without their bonuses?


To be fair, I think, if there are no bonus's, there would probably be a lot less bankers. An investment bankers salary isn't that high in itself.

To be fair, I think, if there are no bonus's, there would probably be a lot less bankers. An investment bankers salary isn't that high in itself.
It's hardly a poorly-paid job, what with an "average starting salary of £35,500, well above the average UK graduate starting salary of £23,500", which can then grow to "between £50,000 and £75,000", potentially "around £150,000" (Source (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Explore_types_of_jobs/Types_of_Job/p!eipaL?state=showocc&idno=488&pageno=2)).

In those cities, they are. Ask Kat, she's from NYC. She'll have noticed how the local budget is going down the toilet.

As a Long Islander, I assure you that it's the whole state that has major issues, not just the city.

It's hardly a poorly-paid job, what with an "average starting salary of £35,500, well above the average UK graduate starting salary of £23,500", which can then grow to "between £50,000 and £75,000", potentially "around £150,000" (Source (http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Explore_types_of_jobs/Types_of_Job/p!eipaL?state=showocc&idno=488&pageno=2)).

Yes, but without the bonus's, I'm thinking a lot of prospective investment bankers would most likely go into other businesses that gives the opportunity for a whole lot more pay.

In those cities, they are. Ask Kat, she's from NYC. She'll have noticed how the local budget is going down the toilet.

Then NYC's economy must be even more badly managed than London's, because though the city as a whole is hurting, I've heard rumors it may be due more to the massive collapse of the national economy, the housing market, and tens of thousands of layoffs than bankers not getting paid their bonuses.

It's symbolically important. The HOS has the central role in any nation, ergo it follows his renumeration should reflect this. It looks more than pathetic if your HOS arrives with all the splendour of your nation, which some private guy easily outshines. It's too much like the UK's wonderful contribution to the closing of the Olympics...the moment when the nation collectively grimaces in embarrassment and flicks channels when you realise the Chinese just totally and utterly pwned you.


I find your attitude far more embarassing. Britain has enough in the way of GDP to do whatever the hell it wants in terms of spectacle. It chooses not to do what China does and the people of Britain should be glad.

It's punishment when you take away the bonuses they were rightfully promised as part of their employment.

The employment they would/should no longer have.

If I agree to bust my ass in exchange for receiving a bonus if I meet my goals, it's nothing more than punishing me if the government decides to take away my bonuses because they feel it's somehow a waste of money. Doing that is nothing less than short-changing employees even more than they already have been in the name of "cost-cutting" and "downsizing".

If I remember correctly the income restraint is only applied to employees of companies who asked for bailout.

Those people deserve that money...it's easy to criticize them and demand they give up their money when you're not the one being targeted. Imagine the outcry that would happen if steelworkers or autoworkers were forced to give up their benefits on the same scale as would happen if these bonuses were eliminated. We'd be talking up to a 50% pay and benefits cut for some of these people employees by these firms...if the UAW or AFL-CIO agreed to those kinds of cuts for workers at the Big Three, we wouldn't even need to bail out the automakers because they would be profitable overnight.

If the compensation of auto and steel workers were "reduced" to 400K there would be no outcry, and technically they don't deserve the money because the companies shouldn't/wouldn't be able to pay them( I'm guessing after the companies assets were sold off their wouldn't be enough pay the bonuses. If employee bonuses are paid off before creditors of bnakrupted companies please correct me).

Then NYC's economy must be even more badly managed than London's, because though the city as a whole is hurting, I've heard rumors it may be due more to the massive collapse of the national economy, the housing market, and tens of thousands of layoffs than bankers not getting paid their bonuses.
I, too, was under this impression.

It seems bizarre, and rather worrying, to think bonuses have so much to do with a city/nation's economy.

That doesn't make it right to punish the vast majority of these people whose bonuses provide a crucial part of their income. Punishing them won't make the economy turn around nor will it make banks start lending ($18.4 billion is a laughable sum compared to the amount of capital in the financial markets) it will only worsen economic conditions with no prospect of improvement. Like anything, their compensation is based upon what these companies were willing to pay for their work; if you put in the effort to get a degree and have the skills and willingness to work in this industry, you deserve to reap the benefits.

If anything, the simple truth is that this $18.4 billion in bonuses is the most direct and most effective part of the "stimulus" money handed out to banks to date...the rest of the money is just plain not going in to the financial system whereas the amounts given out as bonuses are being spent and invested. If we were smart, we would have never even considered giving banks money... let the inept bastards fail and spend it instead on projects and tax cuts that will have real economic effects.
So after the bankers effectively messed up royally in the Sub primes debacle they now get bonuses while the loans they gave out to people who in no way could afford to pay them back are now out of cash and struggling for money?
and you say it's a punishment for the bankers to be denied this bonus?

Let me put it another way, when the big rich kid is given a cake after beating up the skinny little kid would you say that we can't take the cake away from the big rich kid afterward because punishing him would make things worse for the little kid?
that's how it seems to me. maybe it's just my lack of knowledge that leads to my inferior opinion on this but it seems wholly wrong for Bankers to get pay bonuses, who cares if it's in the contract? they get paid, there are other people who need the money more than they do so i think they should suck it up and deal with it.
it's not right man, i don't like this one bit.

I said it already, but its totally fair to deny these people thier bonuses.

They do, do they? Despite having been involved in failed banks?

How many of them were responsible for that failure? Most of them were not involved at all; in fact, a lot of them probably generate considerable amounts of cash for their firms. Those that didn't should have been fired, but attempting to improve these banks by stealing the bonuses of these workers accomplishes nothing.

So after the bankers effectively messed up royally in the Sub primes debacle they now get bonuses while the loans they gave out to people who in no way could afford to pay them back are now out of cash and struggling for money?
and you say it's a punishment for the bankers to be denied this bonus

Again, most of these people had nothing to do with it. Even those that did still deserve their bonuses because they were assured them by contract; just because they fucked up and the people whom they gave those loans to failed to pay them doesn't mean they should be shafted on the compensation they've earned.

You will gain nothing more than economic pain by denying them the money they've earned. It won't get homeowners in to their houses or make banks stop lending, but it will reduce consumption even more than it has already declined.

You will gain nothing more than economic pain by denying them the money they've earned. It won't get homeowners in to their houses or make banks stop lending, but it will reduce consumption even more than it has already declined.

I would think that expanding unemployment insurance(either including more of the unemployed, raising the percentage of wages, or raising the cap of maximum compensation) with the same 18 billion would have helped more people, been more politically acceptable, and would have increased consumption more.

I don't it'd be a terrible idea to not allow anyone to make more than 400,000 a year. Does anyone really need anymore than that to live very comfortably? No.

If these bonuses are contractually obligated, I really don't see how - or why - the companies should avoid trying to pay them.

If these bonuses are contractually obligated, I really don't see how - or why - the companies should avoid trying to pay them.

The federal government can change the law so that that part of the contract is no longer binding.

If I agree to bust my ass in exchange for receiving a bonus if I meet my goals...

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that anyone at these bailed-out financial institutions "met" any "goals" of any sort.

Unless of course the goal was to do a piss-poor job...

....I was just watching Batman: The Animated Series.....

and it made me think of this thread....

"I am Vengence! I am the Left! I AM OBAMA!!!"

I know, stupid, but I just had to post it, it was killing me, lol...

Most certainly belongs here as well ...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/02/02/foreign_workers_sought_for_high_pay_jobs/

Keeping track.

Most certainly belongs here as well ...
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/02/02/foreign_workers_sought_for_high_pay_jobs/

Keeping track.

Omg, that makes me want to Vomit...

That is what gives Corporate America the scumbag image it deserves...

It kills me because it hinders the efforts of Immigrants in this country...People focus on them as a distraction from the real problem....

That the system has been set up to keep wages down, through Wage Slaving Immigrant workers...

and rather than actually solve the problem of Wage Slavery, and getting American jobs back, all anyone ends up talking about is throwing the Mexicans Out...

Those exects should be left to starve....or well, at least get out of the business anyway...for this crap...

Omg, that makes me want to Vomit...

That is what gives Corporate America the scumbag image it deserves...

It kills me because it hinders the efforts of Immigrants in this country...People focus on them as a distraction from the real problem....

That the system has been set up to keep wages down, through Wage Slaving Immigrant workers...

and rather than actually solve the problem of Wage Slavery, and getting American jobs back, all anyone ends up talking about is throwing the Mexicans Out...

Those exects should be left to starve....or well, at least get out of the business anyway...for this crap...Cement this in your memory then. I certainly have.

How many of them were responsible for that failure?

It would be an interesting exercise to find out. However, generally speaking, productivity bonuses are related to productivity, profit-sharing to profit. Now if any of these Banks have been bailed out, they fail to qualify on either count, logically. Thats what happens when companies go down the tubes, and I fail to see why this lot get a free pass.


attempting to improve these banks by stealing the bonuses of these workers


If they were working in a bottle company putting lids on bottles, made their quota and above but the market went tits up, would they get paid? Fuck no. "stealing" my arse.


Again, most of these people had nothing to do with it. Even those that did still deserve their bonuses because they were assured them by contract; just because they fucked up and the people whom they gave those loans to failed to pay them doesn't mean they should be shafted on the compensation they've earned.

You need a good stilton with that.....

...but attempting to improve these banks by stealing the bonuses of these workers accomplishes nothing.
It may not fix the economy, but would you not say that this is an improper time to be handing out fat bonuses?

Moreover, I don't see how one can 'steal' a future, non-existant bonus, unless your saying that the government is taking the bonuses for themselves?

It may not fix the economy, but would you not say that this is an improper time to be handing out fat bonuses?

Moreover, I don't see how one can 'steal' a future, non-existant bonus, unless your saying that the government is taking the bonuses for themselves?

Vetalia apparently believes that 'stimulus package' means 'guaranteed money for failed business practices to spend on themselves'.

When a business slows down, people get laid off, or lower pay, just so the company can survive. But Vetalia would rather the opposite when it comes to myopic banking executives it seems.

Vetalia apparently believes that 'stimulus package' means 'guaranteed money for failed business practices to spend on themselves'.

When a business slows down, people get laid off, or lower pay, just so the company can survive. But Vetalia would rather the opposite when it comes to myopic banking executives it seems.

Indeed. Baby Free Market Jesus forbid that a Government somewhere finally gets off its ass and put an end to the win-win scenario a small segment of society seems to have engineered itself.

Again, most of these people had nothing to do with it. Even those that did still deserve their bonuses because they were assured them by contract; just because they fucked up and the people whom they gave those loans to failed to pay them doesn't mean they should be shafted on the compensation they've earned.

You will gain nothing more than economic pain by denying them the money they've earned. It won't get homeowners in to their houses or make banks stop lending, but it will reduce consumption even more than it has already declined.
No when they offered these loans they should have made damn sure the people were actually able to pay them back.

how have they earned this extra money? on top of the huge amount they are already paid, would it not hurt the economy more by offering these people large amounts of cash?
what would you do in a recession with a large paycheck, save it for later or go on a spending spree? i'm pretty sure alot would be saved. It would make more sense to use this bonus and hand it over to the people who couldn't afford the loans.

The banks already look really really bad, giving them a paycheck regardless of the economic situation or who is really responsible for this will make them look even worse. Not a time for pay rises for the well off.

It seems bizarre, and rather worrying, to think bonuses have so much to do with a city/nation's economy.
It's not that much of a stretch, is it. If you take the aggregate of the bonus payments and/or salaries of the finance industry in places like NYC or London, you come to several billion dollars easily. A big chunk of this money will be spent by these bankers on maintaining their lifestyle, keeping an entire sector of the economy going (not to mention real estate prices). If you take a sum of that extent suddenly out of a city-sized economy, of course things are going to hurt. And if you then cut the revenues from tax payments by the bankers and the banks themselves, the local government is quickly going down the drain too.

Of course this is happening within a generally downward trend, but surely you can't really believe that this amount of money doesn't have an impact on the entire city.

Of course this is happening within a generally downward trend, but surely you can't really believe that this amount of money doesn't have an impact on the entire city.
I'm not confused at it's impact, I'm confused at the assertion that it is vital.

Moreover, are you not assuming that these bankers will spend the money solelyin the city's economy, rather than invest/bank it elsewhere? Oh, and do you have any figures to hand? I'm not saying what you attest is flase, I'm just wondering if there's any actual data on the subject.

are you not assuming that these bankers will spend the money solelyin the city's economy, rather than invest/bank it elsewhere?

^^^ What I was wondering ^^^

You need a good stilton with that.....
Nice. :)