Best of the Fray

Re: They are both dolts.

kwazimota — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:06:38 GMT

i will be so happy to see you wordy bitchs in the rod patch when your ass is tired a humping yall can put on some gear and climb its easier but will kill you faster.why this country educated fags ill never know see yall on your way down

They are both dolts.

Sawbones — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:32:34 GMT

But I'd have to say that Linus' entitlement is the uglier of the two. Albert is angry because he is not being given something that previous experience had taught him to expect as part of his pay; the fact that it is a large amount does not alter this situation. In effect, he worked for that money, so I can understand a feeling of entitlement to it. The fact that he does not see the wisdom in all employees temporarily foregoing this bonus to preserve the health of the company that provides such plum jobs is what makes him a dolt.

Linus is a bit harder candidate for sympathy in my view. You say that he "chose a different path" than Albert, making it sound like a value-neutral proposition, which it is; but by the same token, choosing one's path implies acceptance of the foreseeable consequences of that path. Because he "never really aspired" to the achievements of his brother, he could expect to hold jobs with both less compensation and less security. In an economic downturn, that is exactly the person who will have to accept a lower-paying job, since there will be more competitors in the hunt for that same job. It would be one thing if, by virtue of race, gender, or other characteristics, he had lacked the opportunity to advance further; the fact that he (presumably) had those opportunities, did not pursue them, but then refuses to grapple with the easily foreseeable consequences of that choice, makes me feel that his is the "worse" sense of entitlement.

Re: Schrodinger's Entitlement

RonB52 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:51:56 GMT

Assuming that Albert is able to maintain his lifestyle until the bonus returns, and is just griping over the failure to collect notches on his belt, I find his sense of entitlement less attractive than Linus.

So much so, in fact, that I would take some of his money and give some of what I took to Linus.

(It's called a "contingent fee.")

Re: I'd break both their

Schrodinger — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:48:03 GMT

Haha...I was going to put each of them in a box, and ask you all to choose which one dies, but I decided against it. Too predictable...

I'd break both their

Demcon — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:32:58 GMT

kneecaps. What? Are you saying that wasn't one of the options?

Re: Schrodinger..

JackDallas — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:44:14 GMT

Schrodinger wrote the following post at 03/17/2009 11:25 AM: What about if the bonus payout isn't on the taxpayer's dime? Do executives who didn't earn the bonus still get it?

Well, that of course is up to the company directors. They can give a bonus to whomever they please, for a good reason, or no reason at all. It is my personal opinion that a bonus should be based on performance. If a company is privately owned, it can give away money in any manner it decides to. If it is a corporation, it could catch flak from stockholders for issuing bonuses that are not warranted.

The catch in the AIG story is that it has received billions in taxpayer money as a bail-out. That changes the equation. I would simply tell those who are contractually expecting bonuses, that used to be's don't count anymore. If they leave, they leave. Let them go find another bankrupt company, not getting money from the government, and see how big a bonus they can get for poor performance.

Jack

Re: First lesson of compensation...

Woolley — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:37:45 GMT

Well, in the perfect world you would be right but that is not how the top brass are paid. They get paid one way or the other, its just a matter of how much excess pay they get. Compare it to golf pro's vs. baseball. A pro baseball player gets a gauranteed contract for X and then incentive pay for Y. There is no punitive pay in most of those contracts. A pro golfer has to pay to play and gets nada unless they place. You and I wish the world was like the golfer's but its more like the baseball players. Like I said, this is one of the worst things that happened to us over the last 30 odd years.

It's all in how you address it.

Isonomist — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:34:48 GMT

when you're out of a job, you get what you can until you find something better, then you jump back up to your fair salary, or you become a lawyer, get involved in politics and advocate for better wages. Or you start a company, like Ben and Jerry, and tie executive pay to workers' pay with a ratio.

Since guys like Albert start crawling up the financial food chain to reach those bonuses, they feel that their hard labor at the bottom entitles them to the bonuses, as much as whatever they're doing that year. I think if you know how the structure works in say, AIG, you'll understand better why someone like Albert would sue if they didn't get that bonus. It seems absurd, and should be, but there is a reason in their minds (ie they're not crazy, they're just thinking about this the wrong way).

Re: First lesson of compensation...

Schrodinger — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:25:43 GMT

What about if the bonus payout isn't on the taxpayer's dime? Do executives who didn't earn the bonus still get it?

Re: Ah. It's how you define "need"

Schrodinger — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:24:43 GMT

Hm..so Linus is wrong to expect what he considers a basic wage, and refusing to accept anything lesser than that?

This thought process troubles me. My socialist tendencies tend to push me to believe that Albert is the one who's most wrong. However, the Linus predicament troubles me, because he should still be attemting to carry his weight, otherwise he's a drag on everyone else.

I've been mulling this over ever since I watched the news this morning while drinking my morning coffee, and heard the excuse that AIG needs to pay their huge executive bonuses to "keep talent". Obviously that talent feels entitled to their bonus, even though they didn't really "earn" it. I see this entitlement as the same as the guy on unemployment who feels entitled to a $40k/yr job, even though all the jobs he's qualified for are only paying $30k. My sympathies lie with the poor guy, but my upbringing says that the guy who's expecting his bonus has every right to quit if he doesn't get it. My intellect says that they're roughly equal situations, and neither really deserves what they think they should get. Quite a conundrum.

Hence the hypothetical question posed above. I'm curious what other people think, and the rationale for it. I don't want to complicate the thought process with politics/current events though, because people bring their emotions into the situation, and it all goes downhill from there.

Re: First lesson of compensation...

JackDallas — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:19:50 GMT

I have never known a bonus that was not tied to performance and profits. The concept of an executive getting a bonus whether or not he has done his job efficiently, is foreign to me. No one should be guaranteed a bonus. A bonus is an incentive to do more than is required.

If a company, like AIG, is going into the toilet, how can they pay bonuses....there is no profit from which to pay the bonuses? If the company suddenly thinks it's doing great because it has received $125 Billion from the Federal Government, then it is deluded and needs the lender, or beneficiary, to step in and just say no.

It is un-American for executives to get huge bonuses, at the taxpayer's expense, when they have not managed the company profitably. Whether Obama has the balls to tell them to defecate or vacate the water closet or not, remains to be seen. President Reagan wiould not have allowed it....although I think Bush probably would have caved in to the corporate interests. He never really was on our side.

Jack

Re: First lesson of compensation...

Woolley — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:12:22 GMT

Well, I did not mean do nothing for a lot of money. The point was to control how much of Y you need to do to get X in return. The lower the bar, the higher the pay per unit of work. If you do not think this is how big business works, then you are being fooled by a story in your mind. Small business is probably a different matter because you cannot hide in a small business. But in the big world which is over a 100 employees or so, my rules apply in most cases. As for stock prices...cash is king JD.

Re: First lesson of compensation...

Woolley — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:08:54 GMT

The third lesson is that you are duped into thinking you have no power over your pay. You do. You may not want to hassle it that much but you do. You can always walk, that is ultimately your best bargaining chip. The rest of it are negotiating points. Ever wonder why AIG folks have contracts that pay them despite the debacle? Tons of executive pay plans are like this, tons. In fact, other than hourly workers, most executives are NOT tied to profits at all. They are tied to shareholders first who could care less about the fundamentals of a company, only trading. This is one of the worst things about our system, its skewed towards looting not merit.

Re: First lesson of compensation...

JackDallas — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMT

Your job if you decide to accept it is to get as much X as possible for as little Y as they will allow.

Aw contrary, mon ami. You have clearly demonstrated the purity of the socialist, trade union mentality. This, in a nutshell, is precisely what is wrong with the country today.

My style has always been different. An employee (regardles of level), while always cognizant and ready to negotiate for X. must apply himself so seriously to Y that he ends up being the one who cannot be replaced. He must do his job so efficiently, and so steadily, that the firm for which he works cannot help but prosper from his effort...and take notice.

This is the path to success in the workplace, not joining a Union that will force a company to pay more than a job is worth, and encourage the employee to do as little as possible. I have known many employees over the years who did just as little as they had to do to keep from getting fired. They were, to a man (or woman) miserable creatures.

I suspect that you do more Y than might be expected of you. If you did not, you would not be where you are now (that is....helping my stock to go up).

Jack

Re: First lesson of compensation...

Schrodinger — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:56:40 GMT

Well, good points all, but we differ on what we call entitlement.

My opinion is that pay is largely shaped by what you feel you are entitled to. In other words, you feel you deserve "X" amount of compensation for "Y" amount/type of work + "Z" amount of experience + "ZZ" amount of knowledge + "ZZZ" expectation of life style + "ZZZZ" comparable wage in the market. They're all expectations - you don't compete every day for the pay that you take home; I don't even know what a system that did so would look like.