Since he is doing "pretty well" that justifies taking away what belongs to him? His financial state is irrelevant. If it is his, it is his. We are not a Socialist state yet. Each according to his need and all that crap.
Except that nobody did take it away from him. He got all high-and-mighty about being "villified" and gave it back.
Maybe AIG will be hurt by losing him, but I doubt it.
And you have NO basis for which to have such a doubt.
Right, because I'm not an expert on how AIG is run, I'm not allowed to have opinions about how well they're run. Even though they've given plenty of widely-accepted evidence that they are badly run.
When I complain about executive compensation, I'm not just talking about AIG. I'm talking about the whole corporate sector. For decades, American capitalism did just fine with executives that made maybe 20 times what the ordinary employees made. Now all of sudden we're being told that in order to stay "competitive", we have to pay executives 100 or even 1000 times what the ordinary employees make.
And has this made American Enterprise more robust? Hardly. We're losing ground to other countries where executive are not a priviliged class. American companies stagnate around obsolete business models and technologies. Stockholders have less and less say over how their companies are run. And the workers, who ought to be cultivated as a long term resources, and treated as interchangable and disposable.
What we have here is a self-perpetuating class of corporate drones, who effectively determine their own compensation. With the result that you have an executive who can afford to throw a $750,000 snit! This may not be socialism, but it's not free enterprise either. If it were self-sustaining (which it's not, which I find fortunate as long as I don't look at what's left of my 401K) I'd call it corporate fascism.
It's bothered me for years that the compensation for the top echelon of corporate suits has gone up and up, all in the name of "competitiveness".
That it bothers you, of course, means nothing. Or, it SHOULD mean nothing.
Pudge, you really need to learn the difference between "argument" and "contradiction". I think I'll just say "Monty Python" every time you do this.
Meanwhile, the ordinary folks who actually make the business work have actually lost real earning power.
Another statement you have no basis for making. You don't know how the salaries and benefits for the rank-and-file at AIG have changed over the last several years.
If I talked like you, this is where I'd call you a liar. I made it pretty clear I was talking about the corporate environment as a whole, not AIG.
This inequity is not merely unfair. It's bad for business.
Another statement you have no basis for making.
The outrage is necessary and overdue.
The outrage is based almost entirely on anger and ignorance, rather than a sober examination of the actual facts.
You sir, with your creative semantics, your constant insults, and your selective reading of what other people say, are in no position to accuse anybody of insobriety.
...who took a $1 salary on the promise of a bonus...
I'd like to hear the exact wording of that "promise". A bonus is not supposed to be an entitlement. I didn't get my bonus last year because my company lost money. I really don't see why this guy should be any different.
If he agreed to work for a year in exchange for taking his compensation as a guaranteed "bonus" instead of as a salary, then he and his employer are playing stupid bookkeeping games, and shouldn't get all self-righteous when their games backfire.
Yeah, it's not fair that this guy had to work for a year for free. Lots of unfair things are happening this year. The fact that this guy can afford to express simple self-righteousness by voluntarily returning his bonus tells me he's doing pretty well financially, with or without that bonus. Maybe AIG will be hurt by losing him, but I doubt it. He sounds very much like the top echelon of suits who have an excessive sense of entitlement over their excessive compensation.
This is not even new. It's bothered me for years that the compensation for the top echelon of corporate suits has gone up and up, all in the name of "competitiveness". Meanwhile, the ordinary folks who actually make the business work have actually lost real earning power. They've seen their inflation-adjusted incomes and benefits wither — and that's when they even manage to keep their jobs.
This inequity is not merely unfair. It's bad for business. The outrage is necessary and overdue.
Tell me, when the networks called it, and your friends said "Darn it, that idiot liberal Obama's been elected President," did you say, "No, only the Electoral College has been elected"? If you did, they probably thought you were pretty lame.
Remember GWB calling the Constitution "just a piece of paper"? No?
Nope. Every time I've looked for the sourcing of that quote, there is none. So as far as I am concerned it never happened. If you find a named source on the record claiming it happened, let me know.
Uh, dude, how hard did you look? I'd never even heard the quote, but it only took me a few minutes to trace it back to Doug Thompson who claims that he got it from multiple sources in the meeting where Bush said it. Now, you can question Thompson's honesty — I'm sure you will — but it's not exactly unsourced.
The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."