|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Yrat]
#10302830 - 05/07/09 02:18 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> right, but when the average bonus is upwards of $50,000, which is supposed to reflect production, that means the performance of the company as a whole should have been above average.
What are you talking about? You are confusing production of an employee with production of the company as a whole. If you are making a company money, but the company as a whole is losing money, should you take the blame and be fired? Why can you not see the difference between a bonus that an employee earns by meeting their production quota (which means that they pay for their own bonus, plus make a profit for the company) and the problems that tanked AIG? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. See past the word bonus and try to understand that the employees that earn production based bonuses are not costing the company, or the taxpayer, a single penny. Think of it as commission if that helps you get past your hangup on the word bonus.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Yrat]
#10302899 - 05/07/09 02:33 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yrat said:
Quote:
Seuss said: They do not get the bonuses if they were not profitable, thus their bonus does not cost the taxpayer any more than a waitresses tips cost a restaurant.
how can anyone claim their work to be profitable when the entire corporation was going to implode unless the feds bailed them out?
by the way, has anyone seen anything about this on any major media outlets? i caught the article on drudge when it was the headline for about 5 minutes. after that, it disappeared off the page, entirely, no link or anything anywhere. very strange.
this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. So, since a company is struggling terribly, they should remove incentives for their employees to perform at a high levels?
Yeah, obviously that will help them hire and retain the most talented employees necessary to make a come back.
Meanwhile, as Zappa notes, Chrysler bondholders are being cornholed out of secure debt owed to them in favor of labor and none of you say a word. Isn't that about right in line with what I would expect?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Redstorm]
#10302997 - 05/07/09 02:59 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The only workers the left gives a shit about are the shitty, no talent, no ambition mediocrities. You may wonder why that is but I don't.
--------------------
|
Yrat
Hello
Registered: 11/08/07
Posts: 2,312
Last seen: 3 years, 19 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Redstorm]
#10303197 - 05/07/09 03:42 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said:
What are you talking about? You are confusing production of an employee with production of the company as a whole. If you are making a company money, but the company as a whole is losing money, should you take the blame and be fired? Why can you not see the difference between a bonus that an employee earns by meeting their production quota (which means that they pay for their own bonus, plus make a profit for the company) and the problems that tanked AIG? I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. See past the word bonus and try to understand that the employees that earn production based bonuses are not costing the company, or the taxpayer, a single penny. Think of it as commission if that helps you get past your hangup on the word bonus.
no, i see your point, but what i am getting at is these "bonuses" are funded by taxpayer money. if there was no bailout, would there have been any paid performance bonuses?
Quote:
Redstorm said: this has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read. So, since a company is struggling terribly, they should remove incentives for their employees to perform at a high levels?
Yeah, obviously that will help them hire and retain the most talented employees necessary to make a come back.
no, if a company is struggling terribly, it should be allowed to fail without government intervention. capitalism anyone? they could have hired and retained employees that wouldn't have made decisions that bankrupted the company in the first place. that argument is absurd.
Quote:
Meanwhile, as Zappa notes, Chrysler bondholders are being cornholed out of secure debt owed to them in favor of labor and none of you say a word. Isn't that about right in line with what I would expect?
feel free to start a thread concerning other issues, i started this one to discuss AIG performance bonuses.
-------------------- "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." -Henry David Thoreau Strike The Root
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 5 months, 8 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Yrat]
#10304134 - 05/07/09 06:49 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
That AIG has received federal dollars is a moot point. They got the money and there's nothing that can be done about it now.
What we are discussing is management practices and whether performance incentives make sense in a struggling company. I assert, backed by management literature (and common sense) that incentives are necessary to superior performance, which is going to be one of the key factors in attempting to pull this mess of a company out of the hole it is in.
|
TGRR
Horrible Bastard
Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 2,084
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Seuss]
#10304925 - 05/07/09 09:04 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > They need no bonuses when they're on the taxpayers' tit.
At the corporate level, I agree. At the performance level for employees, such as sales staff, I disagree. Most people that receive these bonuses were hired on at a minimum salary and count on the performance bonus in their personal budgets, much like a waitress getting a lower wage and counting on tips. They do not get the bonuses if they were not profitable, thus their bonus does not cost the taxpayer any more than a waitresses tips cost a restaurant.
Heh. $400K base is not a "minimum salary". Maybe they'll have to cut back on things, you know, like the rest of the world that THEY ruined.
-------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
|
Chespirito
Stranger
Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Redstorm]
#10305376 - 05/07/09 10:36 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: I assert, backed by management literature (and common sense) that incentives are necessary to superior performance, which is going to be one of the key factors in attempting to pull this mess of a company out of the hole it is in.
Hm this is highly debatable. I did go over payscales in an econ class however we discussed why the executives get more money than the lower downs, (seemingly obvious but still should be explained by theory.) As far as giving people bonuses to encourage them to work? Ive never read anything about this to back this notion up. Incentives are one thing but what goals have they attained? Do they have a list of goals that then trigger these bonuses, and if so where are these listed? I would have no problem in bonuses to hard working people that have pulled off decent feats, however barring that bonuses are infective in anything other than enjoying yourself at the restaurant 'Per Se'
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: TGRR]
#10307343 - 05/08/09 09:43 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TGRR said:
Quote:
Seuss said: > They need no bonuses when they're on the taxpayers' tit.
At the corporate level, I agree. At the performance level for employees, such as sales staff, I disagree. Most people that receive these bonuses were hired on at a minimum salary and count on the performance bonus in their personal budgets, much like a waitress getting a lower wage and counting on tips. They do not get the bonuses if they were not profitable, thus their bonus does not cost the taxpayer any more than a waitresses tips cost a restaurant.
Heh. $400K base is not a "minimum salary". Maybe they'll have to cut back on things, you know, like the rest of the world that THEY ruined.
THEY ruined? How about the bums pay their loans back and everybody will be happy happy happy.
--------------------
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: zappaisgod]
#10308855 - 05/08/09 03:57 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: THEY ruined? How about the bums pay their loans back and everybody will be happy happy happy.
The economy wasn't ruined by "bums" that didn't pay their loans, it was ruined by AIG selling boatloads more credit default swaps than they could ever afford to cover if home loans went into default. Their employees made tons of bonuses selling these, and then when it was time to pay the piper, they couldn't.
The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street:
Quote:
...unregulated derivatives and swaps helped produce the largest financial services economy the United States has ever had. Estimates of the market for credit default swaps grew from $100 billion to more than $50 trillion, and you could bet on anything from the solvency of communities to the fate of General Motors.
It also produced a huge transfer of private wealth to Wall Street traders and investment bankers, who collected billions of dollars in bonuses. A lot of the money was made financing what seemed to be a never-ending housing boom, selling mortgage securities they thought were safe and credit default swaps that would never have to be paid off.
The amount of money lost on bad home loans is insignificant compared to the amount lost by AIG (and others) on Credit Default Swaps.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 9 months
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
#10308921 - 05/08/09 04:09 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
If the bums had paid the loans back there would no problem whatsoever with the CDSs. That was real money that caused the avalanche in paper money.
--------------------
|
Chespirito
Stranger
Registered: 02/13/09
Posts: 3,259
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: zappaisgod]
#10309134 - 05/08/09 04:57 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So your point is that a business who makes money by lending money is not responsible for lending money to people who cant pay it back?
as always.
'well I mean gosh guys, we lent them money, its not like its our responsible to check that they can pay it back. Not like we're in the lendin bidness or whatnot'
|
Falcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 32,557
Loc: California, US
Last seen: 6 months, 19 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Chespirito]
#10309635 - 05/08/09 06:55 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
The irony is that people made billions selling Credit Default Swaps, which actually led to the destruction of AIG. Too bad companies are so shortsighted; those execs should have to return their bonuses now.
-------------------- I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them. I also attack my side if I think they're wrong. People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Chespirito]
#10311835 - 05/09/09 07:53 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> So your point is that a business who makes money by lending money is not responsible for lending money to people who cant pay it back?
Why should they be responsible when the government said, "If you don't lend to people that cannot pay it back, you will be sued to death, but if you do lend it to people that cannot pay it back, don't worry, the government will cover any losses. Now, contribute to my campaign, or else!"
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
TGRR
Horrible Bastard
Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 2,084
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Seuss]
#10312115 - 05/09/09 09:38 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > So your point is that a business who makes money by lending money is not responsible for lending money to people who cant pay it back?
Why should they be responsible when the government said, "If you don't lend to people that cannot pay it back, you will be sued to death, but if you do lend it to people that cannot pay it back, don't worry, the government will cover any losses. Now, contribute to my campaign, or else!"
What percentage of the toxic loans were forced, again, and how many were re-fis?
Oh, yeah.
-------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 19 days
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: TGRR]
#10312287 - 05/09/09 10:30 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> What percentage of the toxic loans were forced, again, and how many were re-fis?
Does it matter? Once the ball got rolling...
> Oh, yeah.
Did you forget something?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
TGRR
Horrible Bastard
Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 2,084
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: AIG reveals $454 mln in 2008 performance bonuses [Re: Seuss]
#10315405 - 05/10/09 12:23 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > What percentage of the toxic loans were forced, again, and how many were re-fis?
Does it matter? Once the ball got rolling...
Of course it matters.
-------------------- What can we do to help you stop screaming? Official Mr Shoebat lackey.
|
|