Why is media perpetuating the myth that if you dont pay big money/ bonuses- banks will lose talent?

[TheCoxwain]

I mean SERIOUSLY WTF ???

Let's see where will these 'Talented' People go?

1) To a rival bank? -- Sorry those banks are equally fucked .. and good luck to them find a job in this environment...
2) To another industry - like, say, manufacturing -- Heaven forbid these pampered souls from learning the meaning of "REAL WORK".. Aint gonna happen.
3) To another country - like cayman islands -- I say "Good riddance to bad rubbish"

And seriously - Even if all these assholes vanished without a trace - NOTHING BAD IS GONNA HAPPEN. There are plenty of smart people in the mid level rank who will easily fill the boots....

Infact - I suspect all the greedy ones will take the exit and people who actually love the job will stay on.

What do you all think?

________________

Update : I think every entity receiving even $0.01 of tax payer money, should have a Salary+ Bonus cap of $400,000.00. They can take it or leave it.

[anonymous171]

1. The banking world would be better off if the greedy stupid "talent" left. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

2. I'm with ya.

If they're that "talented" they would have been on top of what was going on with the housing bubble and credit default swaps.

[Deja Q]

3. "talent"? Try these adjectives instead:

"tawdry"
"tosh"
"trash"

Their greed by and large caused the mess.

[BOSSHOG]

4. The perpetuation of conservative values

Businessmen do no wrong and should be heavily compensated. I chuckle at right wing radio blathering on about how bad it would be to not heavily compensate these people BECAUSE THEY MIGHT LEAVE. The AIG greed saga is conservative values incarnate. Fuck up in the private sector and get heavily paid to do so.

[Supersedeas]

47. Repuke Family Values: even unsuccessful elitists deserve taxpayer funded bonuses

And this segment is brought to you by our FAMILY of Financial Industry advertisers

[rfranklin]

5. They are repeating what they have been told...

They do not do critical evaluations of the statements from either the corporations or the government--and that has been a problem for a long time. And the owners of the major media outlets do not want them to look into these claims either.

[msongs]

6. business usually dump high pay staff to boost lower paid upwards - except wall street n rich

people, who stay atop the money chain. slashing salaries and hours only applies to the workers who do the real work. go figure.

[Lasher]

7. Because the myth has been perpetuated loud and long for decades with little or no dissent.

And whouldn't you like to know who has been promoting this propaganda? You get three guesses and the first two don't count.

[SharonAnn]

8. You're absolutely right. There are plenty of unemployed, qualified people available.

[Warpy]

9. A handful of them will go offshore

but the rest of them will go into a major sulk and stay right where they are.

It's not like those fat bonuses buy loyalty or extra effort or anything of the sort. Once people feel that entitled, they're doing the company a favor just by showing up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. If your job's salary got slashed 50% and were offered more elsewhere, would you take it?

Doesn't matter how rich you are, how greedy you are, and don't even give me the BS about "loving the job" - the only people who take less for more are those that work at non-profits (and I'm one of them, thanks) - if someone offers you significantly more money for the same job, you take it.

It's really that simple, and it's not "greed" by any stretch.

Now, whether or not those other jobs exist, as you mention in your post, is beyond this poster's analysis - but I suspect the ones with actual talent and a clientele would likely have no problem at all finding those other jobs somewhere else. And of course, those are precisely the people you don't want leaving.

All that said, I still don't agree with bailout money going to bonuses, but it's not an utterly meritless argument.

[TheCoxwain]

14. You are placing too much of a premium for talent my friend ...

I am not asking a guy making $200,00 to take a pay cut -- All I want is that all compensation for firms receiving aid should be capped at the presidents salary .. that is plenty of money for anyone. If some people are dissapointed - then tough luck. Lots of very smart people are laid off all the time - So I refuse to weep for someone just because his salary was slashed to 400,000 ( from 100 million)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Again, I'm not the one placing the premium.

I'm just saying it's not totally a bullshit argument. If I knew my paycheck were going to be cut in half, and I found a way to prevent that from happening, I'd bolt in a heartbeat, regardless of how much money we're talking. That ain't greed - that's common sense. And though I'm not going to weep for anyone making 5-20+ times my salary, let's call a spade a spade here. You'd bolt too.

[TheCoxwain]

18. I would bolt faster than you would .... granted.

But will that prevent you from enforcing a systemic fix? . I think - on net - this will be a positive thing as the taxpayer money being given out to these institutions will be used to lend rather than pay fat salaries and bonuses ..

If talented people leave - that is collateral damage. I suspect bulk of them will swallow it and continue working - which really leads me to believe that this whole argument is simply a ploy to save everyones fat salaries and bonuses.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. I'm only saying the argument shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

If you're okay with talented people leaving - and for the record, I am more than okay with that too, as I can only imagine the next generation of talent and "geniuses" thriving after getting a crack at jobs they wouldn't ordinarily have - then that should be said.

That was not the crux of your OP, however.

[TheCoxwain]

21. NO .. my OP really questions the validity of 'talent flight' ... I am not

saying that there are no exceptions -- but if you agree with me - the consequences of 'talent flight' are blown way out of proportion in our own minds ..


In fact - there is no discussion of it beyond the basic fear mongering ..." OH NO! The talented people will leave" that leaves the consequences to our imagination ... which we all assume is something VERY BAD ..


I am just challenging the notion .. that is all there is to it.

[bvar22]

32. Where are they going to "bolt" to?

How many $100Million dollar jobs are out there?

Let them "bolt", and let "the invisible hand of the market" determine their new salary in a flooded market.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. Addressed in post #10.

:hi:

[54anickel]

11. Their only talent is in finding loopholes and working around the intent of the law to the point that

those laws have become meaningless. As long as it's not illegal.....no harm, no foul.....oopsie, how was I to know it would cause an economic collapse. Thank Bob for this golden parachute.

Put another quarter in and try again, suckers!

[Raineyb]

12. How talented can they be? They ran the banks into the ground

:shrug:

It seems to me that the banks would be better off without these "talented" crooks.

Regards

[MadrasT]

15. +1

My sentiments exactly.

[Lugnut]

41. Exactly.

How much talent does it take to wreck your company?

[Hoopla Phil]

13. Let me try to help.

Now I'm not sure what bonuses the President is actually referring to because lately I've only been hearing about total "bonus" dollars. So, assuming that all the bonus money is being lumped in together I'll try to help explain.

Banks are very goal and sales orientated. As such the bonus system is a complete part of the compensation package starting all the way down the the tellers. These bonuses are considered part of a persons salary because you get the bonuses for doing your job the way you are supposed to. It is a very effective way to keep the less productive people from staying in the company - a self motivation to quit if you will. With that in mind here are some examples up to the Branch Manager level.

Tellers - bonuses are given when they stay in perfect balance on their drawer. Bonuses are given for referrals for other bank products. The teller gets the customer to site down with a loan officer or the banks internal financial adverser they get bonuses. All this things help generate business for the bank and the bonus system helps insure the teller is doing what is expected and the teller figures in a certain amount of referrals each week for their paycheck.

New Accounts - These people often have a goal of new accounts to meet. A goal of new account dollars to meet and goals for cross-selling other bank products. If all these goals are met then bonuses are given. The new account person expects to meet these goals and as such counts that bonus money as their normal pay. In fact, if/when a new accounts person fails to meet one of their goals they will often consider their paycheck "short".

Loan officers - They also have goals for number of loans, type of loans, and dollars in loans. Exact same deal with the new accounts people. If they don't hit their goals they are "short" on their paycheck.

Branch Managers - Same deal but they have goals to be met for all the categories of all their people added up. Often Branch Managers will get bonuses in a percentage of the profit of the branch. It is very possible for "branches" to be profitable (because all of the branch personnel are doing their job) but for the bank as a whole to have a loss.

That is as far as I will go because that is all my knowledge base goes. Now if all of the bonuses in my examples are also being included in the numbers that the President is using then it may not be real cool to try and take the money back as most of these people are not very rich. In fact many of them are living pay check to pay check struggling to make ends meet.

Just some food for thought. I may be wrong and the President is only looking at the total of the top executives but I do not know.

[Pharlo]

25. What you're describing here - to those of us out in 'Main Street'

are not bonuses. Out in the real world, they're referred to as 'commissions' or 'piece work'.

A 'bonus' is a reward given to individuals in a PROFITABLE company at the end of the year. A form of 'thank you' for a job well done or going above and beyond the call.

Perhaps Wall Street needs to revamp it's vocabulary to be more in concert with the American tax payer who is busting their ass out on Main Street trying to make ends meet and watching their hard earned tax dollars being given away as 'bonuses' for a job well done.

I realize you're trying to be helpful by identifying what exactly is meant by a 'bonus' in the finance industry. However, what Wall Street needs to understand is that as long as Main Street is hearing 'bonus' they are thinking 'reward for job well done.' And, unless the finance industry had 'running the world's economy into the shitter' on their list of goals, they were VERY unsuccessful.

Keep in mind, out in the real world (not finance), the word 'bonus' will always be a reward for a job well done. Not a commission. If Wall Street has ANY hope of keeping their 'bonus', they better redefine their 'bonus' as a 'commission'.

That, or rather than referring to making their quota as a 'bonus', refer to the difference in 'lost pay' between the target and actual as a 'penalty'.

A salary is a salary. If the bonus is part of the salary, it's not a bonus, it's their salary. If they have a quota to meet, terminate them if they don't meet their quota.

If the finance industry were to redefine their terms, they would find their pay structure to be more palatable, if not completely acceptable, to the rest of us.

I do thank you for edifying the whole 'Wall Street bonus/salary' definition, but the truth is, the general masses (most taxpayers) will continue seeing the word 'bonus' and think 'reward for a job well done' and scream bloody murder every time one of these TARP companies are mentioned in the same breath as the word 'bonus'

[truedelphi]

36. The situation that we are discussing is not relative too much

To the small time people at a local bank. Not even relative to the top managers of a local bank branch.

Again, that term would be "commissions"

The people we criticize are at the very top end of the banking empire. The CEO, CFO, COO etc. of JP Morgan. At Bank of America. At Wachovia and WaMU. These executives at the top drove their firms and the entire economy with it into the ground. And since they did not "produce" but instead "destroyed" they should not be owed any bonuses at all.

However the meetings these top execs held with lobbyists for the Monied Elite indeed have paid off, so inside the Banking Elite, I am sure that the bonuses for these excecutives are considered money well spent.

And of course, since it is no longer even the firm that employed them paying out the bonuses but our tax dollars, I imagine it to be an even further win/win for the inner circle of banks.

[Marr]

17. Go to theyrule.net and you'll see why.

Big media is basically Wall Street's PR department.

[Canuckistanian]

20. America could do without "talent" like that

They may be bright and hard-working, but the damage they ultimately cause by only thinking about and working toward only their own bottom line is devastating.

[Uncle Joe]

22. I believe a society equating talent with greed, can be nothing but

a race to the bottom.

Coincidently many of those same people would also equate money with speech, what a ludicrous notion! Using that logic one person's millions or billions can literally drown out the voices of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Americans, how is that free speech?

I believe the two self-serving, malignant and short sighted dynamics are intricately connected.

[rocktivity]

23. But the execs really HAD talent

the banks wouldn't have NEEDED to be bailed out!

:crazy:
rocktivity

[pansypoo53219]

24. talent?

for fucking up talent?

[spin]

26. The Peter Principle might apply...

According to Laurence Johnston Peter: Work is accomplished by those employees who have not reached their level of incompetence. Thus we can see why organizations still function even as Peter Principled employees accept one too many promotions. Laurence Peter provides an insightful analysis of why so many positions in so many organizations seem to be populated by employees who seem incompetent. This concept is likely to be ignored by most senior managers since to admit one's organization is suffering from this bureaucratic malady is admission that people have been improperly promoted. This, in turn, suggests that senior management might have attained their own level incompetence, and the problem is easily ignored, lest it become suggested that senior management be more closely examined for their incompetence.

******snip*******

Companies will attract and expand on a certain level of incompetence. Once a company forms a culture of incompetence, only the incompetent staff will remain, and the competent ones will tire of trying to soar with eagles while surrounded by turkeys, and therefore leave.
http://www.envisionsoftware.com/Management/Peter_Principle.html

[librechik]

27. They all want their own retention bonuses (especially becasue they are incompetent)

and are furiously disseminating the myth that folks like themselves (white collar criminals whose bubble they helped inflate) are indispensable.

[Vinca]

28. If the bonus-receiving people were "talented," we wouldn't be in this mess.

They ought to be fired and forced to find another occupation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. They should all be fired and subjected to one of the greatest reality checks there is:

working industrial and clerical temp.

I was on the borderline between conservative and liberal until I saw how many companies treat their workers and what useless, lazy, overpaid blobs many executives are. Those experiences pushed me past moderately liberal all the way to Democratic Socialist.

[Echo In Light]

30. Because the mainstream, agenda-setting media are owned and managed by vested interests...

And are in business to lie big to the populace as a means of social control/brainwashing.

[Raster]

31. Because the corporate-controlled media is owned by the same persons that own...

...the corporate-controlled financial infrastructure. And when they say pay bonuses to retain talent, what they really mean is payoffs to accomplices. And this "neoCONjob of Wall Street" bullshit is going to continue unless Americans--you, me and the family down the street--rise up and kick some ass.

[2Design]

33. yeah talent that helped them fail - like GWB - someone bails them

out - if the company was allowed to fail as it should have been before the gWB group sold another FOOLs GOLD adventure - they would be out of work and should be

[Two Americas]

34. what "talent?"

What is the supposed "talent" involved?

Greed and a lack of moral integrity and ruthless determination to step on people and rip them off are not "talents." They should be crimes, when acted on.


...

[Raster]

37. You are soooooo right! Only in neoCONjob America is greed good.

The corporate carnivore capitalist is a dangerous animal, and should be treated as such. Either locked in a cage to protect others, or shot like a mad fucking dog.

[Two Americas]

38. it is so bizarre

While teachers - motivated by an urge to contribute and to help others for the most part - are under suspicion with all of the "merit pay" talk, the sharks who have destroyed the country are called "talent?"

[Raster]

39. This type of fetid conundrum is only possible in a society that views corporations as...

..."immortal persons."

[Two Americas]

42. yes

That may be something of a symptom rather than a cause. No doubt unregulated corporate charters are a powerful tool on the hands of the wealthiest few, and they do much damage to a society. It was, after all the tyranny of the British Crown corporations that led to the American revolution, though that is rarely discussed and largely ignored or suppressed. Still, it is mostly a tool.


...

[closeupready]

35. Here's what I don't get: Air Traffic Controllers go on strike, they are promptly fired.

We're told that those who steered AIG into disaster will walk, 'oh, no, we can't have that, give them whatever they want.'

[ddeclue]

40. Talent? WHAT Talent? That's like saying the mid 80's Braves had "talent"..

:rofl:

[ladjf]

43. Paying them to leave would make more sense than paying them to stay.

[tekisui]

45. M$M and Greedy CEO's are one and the same.

[ejpoeta]

46. yeah, i got a good laugh out of that. the unemployment numbers are pretty high for that argument.

where would they go? it's hard to even find a job at walmart right now. but hey, keep dreamin folks. if we can try to bust the unions in requiring all those strings for the automakers, then we can do something about AIG and it's employees. I think we need to break up the company into teeny tiny pieces so it is no longer too big to fail.