namelesstavern.net

Long article but a good read i think....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/busin ... ?th&emc=th

For Dow Kim, 2006 was a very good year. While his salary at Merrill Lynch was $350,000, his total compensation was 100 times that — $35 million.

The difference between the two amounts was his bonus, a rich reward for the robust earnings made by the traders he oversaw in Merrill’s mortgage business.

Mr. Kim’s colleagues, not only at his level, but far down the ranks, also pocketed large paychecks. In all, Merrill handed out $5 billion to $6 billion in bonuses that year. A 20-something analyst with a base salary of $130,000 collected a bonus of $250,000. And a 30-something trader with a $180,000 salary got $5 million.

But Merrill’s record earnings in 2006 — $7.5 billion — turned out to be a mirage. The company has since lost three times that amount, largely because the mortgage investments that supposedly had powered some of those profits plunged in value.

Unlike the earnings, however, the bonuses have not been reversed.

noo it is not the ceos who get paid way too much for the work they do it is the mailroom guy if it wasnt for him making minimum wage everything would of been all right....

this is why im against the bailouts, the big three have been handing out huge bonuses to the top while whining that they pay their workers enough to afford a house

I can see not supporting the bailout for the auto industry because of the overpaid underworked upper management and ceos, but they aren't the ones that are going to be taking it up the ass when these companies go under.

So we should ALL take it up the ass?

If you think 15 to 35 billion equates to taking it up the ass, sure. That's pennies compared to what it will end up costing when we lose all the jobs related to the industry. Not really a tough choice in my opinion

I really don't see why we should be throwing money at anyone. It's fucking ridiculous.

this is supposed to be a capitalist society. let the fucks fail and restructure.

we are far away from a pure capitalist system....

How does that work exactly? They fail, go bankrupt, have no equity after everything is gutted and sold off to the Chinese... then somehow restructure?

other companies rise to take their place. the big three and wallstreet are failing due to bad management decisions. yes i feel sorry for the workers but this would not be an issue if the guys at the top put stability above short term gain

Then why not demand replacing the top management as condition for giving them the money? Keeps all the average people employed, you know, the average working types who WEREN'T responsible for driving the companies into the ground? Plus it also gets rid of those who DID make the mistakes. In point of fact, they were discussing that very possibility.

Personally, I'd rather see bailout money go to companies that actually PRODUCE something than to some of these wall street firms. Some of whom (hi, AIG) are planning on using taxpayer money to pay out millions upon millions in "retention bonuses" to make sure their "valued executives" don't "leave for other opportunities." That makes me physically ill.

First, WHAT opportunities? Tens of thousands of financial people are out of work. Where are they going to go? Second, those executives had direct responsibility for REQUIRING the bailout. Why in hell would you WANT to keep them, when they just ran the business into the ground? They should be FIRING them, not retaining them. Third, why should *ANYONE* at a failing company get a bonus, unless maybe they were in the lone profitable division or something? Lastly, how DARE they use taxpayer money for that bullshit?

Theoretically, the financial bailout had language to prevent that. But, as I learned recently, appearances are different than actuality. The original language of the bill assumed that the treasury would be buying troubled assets at auction, as that's what Bush's treasury people said they were going to do. So, the bonus limits were written in to apply only to firms who sold assets at auction to the federal government. Seeing as how the treasury hasn't spent one dime holding auctions, and instead just handed money out, those bonus limits don't apply, and Bush's people have already indicated there's no way in hell they'll go along quietly with changing the language to fix the loophole.

Oh, one other fun fact for you. Check out Goldman Sach's last annual report. For the year, they had a profit of 2.3 billion dollars. Last year, they paid a tax rate of 34.1%. Seems generally reasonable, yes? Guess how much they're paying this year? 1%. Yep, that's right, ONE percent. They attribute this drop to, and I quote, "changes in geographic earnings mix."

Translation, they are hiding most of their money in offshore accounts in places like the Cayman islands which have no tax rate, to get around American tax laws. A congressman from Texas summed this up rather well when he said, "With the right hand out begging for bailout money, the left is hiding it offshore."

Makes you love our financial companies, doesn't it?

-Arlos

To be honest, this entire fucking situation makes me rage.

Tuggan wrote:How does that work exactly? They fail, go bankrupt, have no equity after everything is gutted and sold off to the Chinese... then somehow restructure?

Ah no. It works by a bankruptcy court clearing some debt, clearin some of the shit contracts they are stuck with, a big downsizing, reorganization and a push for better quality, oh and a clearing of the assholes in charge. How many times has an airline gone bankrupt and come out it of it? um and btw they have no equity NOW thats part of the problem. And we havent even discussed them being stuck with the credit intensive dealer and self loan systems. YOu know you cannot buy a car directly from the company? There is always some dealer that has to be involved. their very powerful lobby sees to that.

we don't have the money to give! we are broke and in debt! how is this even an issue?

basically they will bully to get it, and claim "well we will all go down" but if they don't get it they'll just file chapter 11 and sorry to say it, but I'm going tough love on this one. There are people that are destitute, I mean poor, poor people...this is hardly a huge deal for those money-makers.

Tuggan's right, the problem comes with the underpaid workers who will lose their jobs. Unemployment is up. We are all feeling this. Mom and Pop's have to Mom and Pop it now...we're all tightening our belts and pinching our pennies. Shit happens. It's important to take the shit that happens and turn into something good.

Lending money we don't have can't be good.

araby wrote:Tuggan's right, the problem comes with the underpaid workers who will lose their jobs.

I hope you aren't talking about the employees of the auto manufacturers.

I've got a friend whose father was recently denied retirement b/c the unions screwed up his pension plan... get rid of the unions and I'd be game for an auto bailout.

I need someone to break it down for me, regarding the union and how it relates to this. Cause I don't understand. I mean, it's one of those things I don't know a thing about at all.

araby wrote:I need someone to break it down for me, regarding the union and how it relates to this. Cause I don't understand. I mean, it's one of those things I don't know a thing about at all.

The union makes employers pay their workers a fair wage. I guess paying the employees that actually MAKE YOUR PRODUCT a fair wage is putting all these companies out of business. It has nothing to do with multi million dollar bonuses to corrupt execs and an overall disregard for what the market will bear.

its all of that Toss. The unions idea of a fair wage is what they can pry out of the company's hands. the CEO's leech the company's funds with these lucrative bullshit contracts. this shit cant be allowed to go on anymore. Free market my ass

I'm not sure I understand correctly. Unions protect the interests of employees, or as tossica said, ensure fair wages.

Do you need a union for that? How is a union unlike a lobbyist? Is this the same as bullying?

Unions are useful to ensure fair wages because groups of people have more power than individuals. Unions first really rose many years ago when workers effectively had NO protections of any kind. Employers would pay people tiny wages, make them work in extremely hazardous conditions, etc.

So, Unions arose because companies could ignore or silence solo individuals who complained or refused to go along with the conditions. You get every single employee working there becoming their own organization though, and they HAVE to listen. One big reason is because if everyone is organized together, they can walk off the job together and go on strike. While most employers can easily get by with 1 or 2 people quitting, how can they get anything done if NO employees show up?

Anyway, the entire original purpose of Unions is to ensure their members got fair wages and fair treatment from employers.

-Arlos

and now unions are bloated, largely useless fucksticks that ensure artificial inflation of wages! Yay!