Big Banks set aside 150 BILLION in bonuses

B

Bevo Incognito

5,000+ Posts
Assuming this is true, what do y'all think about this?


The Link


We've seen the charts showing the discrepancies between the ratios of what CEOs get paid in the US vs. their workers vs. what CEOs in other countries get paid.

My question, using this article as a metaphor, is if y'all think that a system in which the wealthy are rewarded at such a disproportionate level compared to the non-wealthy is a) a healthy system and b) sustainable over time.

I'm retired and have no dog in this particular fight. But I am interested in the preservation of the US for at least the remainder of my days on the planet.

Thanks and I will hang up and listen.
 
Ridiculous to me that you can actually lose money for the year and then still hand out bonuses. They budget this into their payroll during the course of the year.

This only gives me more evidence that we should have broken up the banks in 08. They are not going to change their pattern of behavior and it will only be worse the next time.
 
you need to join our republican friends and keep your focus on what is really important ---- preventing middle class American families from continuing to receive a reduciton of $1000 annually in SS taxes.
 
Wall street backed obama. ever heard of Corzine?

The FED is the real entity to blame here, they keep lending the banks money.
 
I was really hoping we could avoid the partisan ******** on this thread. Of course, that was a naive hope.

Please don't make this a Republican/Democrat thing. We all know that those two parties are irretrievably broken. No need to point it out here.

I'm more interested in the sociological/cultural ramifications of this, as well as whether or not y'all see it as just.
 
These numbers, though outrages, shouldn't come as a surprise. The United States has been on an economic slide since Ronald Reagan came into office in January of 1981 and set into action supply side economics, aka "Reaganomics." As the tax breaks have continued to go to the most wealthy, average Americans have felt the weight on their shoulders becoming heavier and it doesn't look like it will be easing up any time soon.
__________________________________________________

you cry out to avoid partisan bs yet you post a partisan article. From personal experience of a guy who makes a lot of money, the rich pay the most in taxes so i dont get the statement above that the rich get the most tax breaks. half the country pays nothing in income taxes. bank of america is a terribly run bank and its on the verge of going under. if anyone here reading this banks at bank of america, i would get out and switch banks. i was against the bank bailout. many people were but the government tried to sell the fraudulent story that our system would collapse if the banks collapsed.
 
Simpllistic, I know, but stockholders need to push back and fire the board when stock value is decreasing and the top brass are getting big bonuses anyway. Publicly traded companies can have so many organizational problems.
 
Nobody is being forced to do business with the (as Clark Howard puts it) GiantMonsterMegaBanks. I certainly don't. How the GiantMonsterMegaBanks choose to spend or waste their customer's money is their business. Where people put their money is their choice. I recommend choosing small, locally owned banks or Credit Unions. If enough people listened to me, executive bonuses would not be such a concern.
 
Completely agree with Sangre here. I have a Chase account for international purposes but I do most of my banking with a local bank. Customer service should still matter.
 
I agree except for that the government is using our tax money to bail out these larger banks and, thus, negatively affecting us regardless of whom we bank.
 
I tend to side with the conservative side of the political spectrum. I believe that in general the government shouldn't be involved in the dealings of business. I am for companies being able to determine their own bonus structure.

I do have one question though. Would companies and/or the country be better off if executives were paid less than they are today? Let me explain the reason for the question. Instead of all the layoffs, offshoring, etc... wouldn't US businesses or even more the US economy be more stable if the executives made less? That money would then be profits. Or some of the money could be used to give better incentives to the people who do the work. This isn't about the banking industry. I am talking about all industry.

I don't have it out for executives. They run large organizations and should be well compensated with hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars.

But I work for a large corporation and I see people losing their jobs at the slightest downturn while the executives still make their large salaries plus hefty bonuses. In some instances I would even say the people lost their jobs SO THAT the executives could receive their bonuses. Again I am talking about the corporation I work for only. There is a bonus system and they are gaming the system.

I can't help thinking that this company would be better served to cut bonuses across the board to keep employees that do the work. Once they are gone the work doesn't get done which only hurts the company long term.

I hear statements that these executives are the producers so they should get the lion's share of the reward. That may be true for some industries but I think in general executives set the general direction and prioritize activities. Those are very important roles, but there are many more roles that are just as important that are involved with innovation, efficiency improvement, and execution. I think those contributions are minimized often by people in these discussions when trying to defend executive compensation.

Thoughts?
 
Monahorns, you asked good questions. However, you need to understand how banks work. The bulk of the purported $150B is going to relationship managers - guys who handle the relationships that bring the banks their revenue/income. Without them, the banks would not have made money. They very much are the direct source of $. Managers and executives also get paid, but they aid in bringing in the business, believe me. Regardless, the bulk of a bank's bonuses goes to the point persons on loans/relationships, not "executives."
 
Rex, what you say makes sense. So you are saying at banks it is not necessarily the executives who receive the bonuses. It's more account managers, people who are dealing with customers.

My experience is in industrial/technology type companies where it is mainly managers or executives that are receiving large bonuses. Those who are directly in charge of innovation or execution of the business objectives not so much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top