DISQUS

cosanostradamus · 10 months ago

.
Quit bitching on the blogs! Bitch directly to Congress. Or maybe the president of that TV network you hate.
.

SkippyFlipjack · 10 months ago

Every time these idiots open their mouths, they get uglier and uglier. Robertson makes the case that bonuses are OK because some companies have a cap on how much they can pay employees, so they must put the rest of their salary in as a bonus. Does this "legend" not understand that his basic premise is flawed? That the "bonus" structure, by his definition, is just a way to get around a regulation? Perhaps it's a legal thing, or just an internal one, but if everyone in your company makes over $70k even though you're supposedly capping salaries at that amount, something is clearly broken. Instead, Robertson worries that people with no bonuses will get "annoyed". F*** the lot of these greedy, myopic, condescending bastards.

MC_Haiku · 10 months ago

I don't get the the concept of "retention" bonus ... I mean, where are any of these assholes going to GO if they don't get their cut of the heist? There is nowhere to go.

Angry · 10 months ago

This makes me so angry. How dare these people complain about smaller bonuses when most people are lucky to get any kind of a bonus (my hubby got a token $100 in December; I got none), and so many people have been laid off or had hours cut (myself included). The people who caused this mess should be out on their ears, not being compensated to be retained nor rewarded with bonuses.

example · 10 months ago

McCaskell is a grandstanding idiot who said last week she wasn't even sure she'd vote for the stimulus plan. Sure, let the economy go down the toilet but score some points against by proposing laws that would never pass.

It's fucking obnoxious how people don't do a damn thing about the unfair system, then win everyone over by spouting some populist B.S. then go back to business as usual when people stop paying attention. UGH.

Older_Wiser · 10 months ago

It's all in the terminology.

Call "bonuses" a "cost overrun" and it's more understandable.

timncguy · 10 months ago

I have worked for a company that gave bonuses each year. They were dependant on the "performance" of both te company as a whole and the individual. Each year the comapny set a goal for its expectations. Meet or exceed the goal and the company was able to have a bonus pool for all employees. Each year each employee set goals for their individual performance. Mett or exceed your goals and you would participate in the bonus pool IF THE COMPANY as a whole qualified for the bonus pool to be created that year.

Are those defending these bonuses trying to claim that these companies met or exceeded their goals for the year? If a company lost BILLIONS, was their goal for the year to just not lose MORE billions than they lost?

I'm assuming that every employee at these companies has an annual salary that covers doing their job. Certianly we were told at my job that bonus money was NOT TO BE CONSIDERED as automatic. And, that you shouldn't be budgeting your household expenses based on an expectation of a bonus as part of your salary.

If you weren't prepared to live on your salary, you shouldn't have accepted the job at that salary.

TheLeftIsRight · 10 months ago

Perhaps we should have let these Wall Street firms go bankrupt -- a court appointed administrator would have had the sense/responsibility to the creditors in mind and killed the bonuses.... It seems the whole "they're too big to fail" mentality has gone to the head of the executives of these firms, making them feel their actions are beyond reproach and therefore justifying a business as usual behavior. This is sickening...

Indigo · 10 months ago

A "bonus" is a "gratuity" is a "tip." 10% is generous in these difficult times.

katiec · 10 months ago

Well, Since these high and mighty people think they can spend our taxpayer dollars however they want, do not give them one more cent, If they fail, they fail. Bonuses are supposed to be for a job well done. The financial institutions are thumbing their noses at us.

RonNYC · 10 months ago

To me, there is only one issue regarding bonuses: Do we, the taxpayers, foot the bill? If so, then no bonuses (and we have to require that bonuses already given must be given back). If we didn't foot the bill, then it's the company's business.

AdmNaismith · 10 months ago

These are the same sorts of people who think welfare is rank socialism, and that you should not get paid if you don't work.
By that logic, they should not get paid for destroying their companies.

Not only should these guys NOT get BONUSES for CRASHING THE WORLD ECONOMY (You cannot put too fine a point on that), they should be stripped of their professional credentials and not allowed to work in any job that has anything to do with money (the fry machine is too close to the cash register in this example ;-) ).
Or lined up against a wall and shot.

clio · 10 months ago

Remember the flap about those overpaid auto workers?
The workers who average $60,000/year working the line for 8 hours with 2 10 minute breaks and 22 minutes for lunch?
Those workers?
They'd love to get bonuses averaging $112,000 and work sitting down at a desk where no shop steward looks over their shoulder.
Not that they do - or ever did - even if they still have jobs.
Cry me a river, Wall Street.

Jeff · 10 months ago

I just last week received my "Bonus" and it was only $5000.00 which went 40% in taxes. I would gladly give that up if it meant we could keep the middle class white collar jobs here in the US and not outsource them to India and the Philippines. The Middle Class needs to stand up and demand more or soon we will be fighting for those supposed jobs that Americans will not do.

burro · 10 months ago

Socialism for the upper crust. Capitalism for the proles scrambling around in the harsh realities of dog eat dog economics at the bottom. The bonus babies should be loaded on a barge in NYC Harbor like the garbage that they are and then sent on a long cruise looking for someplace that will take them. If that place can't be found, scuttle the POS and wave bye bye.

The bonus babies are nothing but greedy, self centered thieves who feel they have the privilege of being wealthy whether they earn it or not. They have experienced wealth. They know how to live well. They shouldn't be hampered in their pursuit of happiness and if the funding for that pursuit comes from the taxpayer, then so be it.

These motherf**kers don't have sh*t coming to them. They are owed nothing for screwing the pooch on a carpet of rose petals. They are badasses until the poo hits the fan and then they are whining, needy, petulant brats who demand theirs first without the slightest hint of justification.

Slightly off topic but also smack in the middle of it is this from Matt Taibbi in the new Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/2555...

"That the chief of staff, (Rahm Emanuel), of the president-elect of the United States knew enough not to openly buy a Senate appointment on the telephone with a gubernatorial staffer known to be under both state and federal investigation is, I guess, minimally reassuring. But the Blagojevich affidavit is nonetheless a supremely shocking document, even to those of us who already have the lowest of expectations when it comes to American politicians. In the wake of the scandal involving former Minnesota senator Norm Coleman — a similar if smaller-scale mess involving a big-league politician allegedly trolling for cash — the sight of the governor of Illinois feverishly tricking out every last inch of his political body like a sweat-drenched 250-pound North Texas hooker makes one wonder if America's slide into Third World status is now officially irreversible."

That third world status is staring us in the face and vultures like the bonus babies who pick while the picking's good and leave the bones for the hyenas are perfect examples of how Amerika in the early 21st Century works. It's survival of those closest to the trough. Who are the real idiots here?

freshpaint · 10 months ago

I worked for groups of options and futures traders back in the day (aka, "Greed is Good" day). Bonuses and perks were the way things worked back then too, but they expanded and contracted as business conditions and the firm's prospects and coffers allowed, and in my firm, the bonusses applied to every person there, down to the lowliest runner and office clerk. We (I was IT staff) were always told that we shouldn't rely on bonusses (which often were more than 100 percent of salary compensation for the quarter and were merit adjusted as well). After the meltdown of 87 ( Black Monday), they pretty much disappeared to a token. Don't know what's happening with them now -- no longer working in the industry.

LLDEM · 10 months ago

Bottom line is, the essence of the bonus was to reward outstanding performance, personal as well as corporate. If the performance of neither is good, then the bonus - or lack thereof - should reflect that. If you do a shitty job and in the meantime cause a global financial meltdown, I don't think you should be rewarded for it, in fact, if you still have your job, you should be grateful for that. Turn that bonus winning genius you showed in years past, and figure a way out of this mess. That's a person I'd gladly reward.

Just as a side note, my partner works for one of the world's communication giants, and the ceo has declined his bonus for this year. Maybe some of those other Wall St (what did Clair call them?) idiots should take his lead

irishdave3 · 10 months ago

Back in the day, Babe Ruth was asked why he should be paid more than the POTUS(Hoover) and he replied "Because I'm having abetrter year." Guess all those executives are having Career Years