http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akcQKz2G5CX4
Morgan Stanley boosts pay by 37 percent.
72% of revenues...
Morgan Stanley boosts pay by 37 percent.
72% of revenues...
Bloomberg: Morgan Stanley Sets Aside 72% of Revenue for Employeesâ Pay
- Thread starter PragmaticIdeals
- Start date
In defense of the harder working lower tier worker-bees, I always wonder why they (journalists) make the assumption that the pie is divided evenly.
For instance, they would say something like: It was a great quarter and X made 3bil, enough to payout each of 10,000 workers $300,000; giving the false assumption that everyone is getting that much, and directing anger to all the workers. The reality is that the pie is not sliced that way. More likely, 90% is going to a 'very few' top execs, and the rest of the pittance is divided amongst the 'worker-bees.' Why can't journalists be a little more accurate in their reporting.
For instance, they would say something like: It was a great quarter and X made 3bil, enough to payout each of 10,000 workers $300,000; giving the false assumption that everyone is getting that much, and directing anger to all the workers. The reality is that the pie is not sliced that way. More likely, 90% is going to a 'very few' top execs, and the rest of the pittance is divided amongst the 'worker-bees.' Why can't journalists be a little more accurate in their reporting.
They're going to pay employees whatever it takes to keep them from bolting. No more no less.
If you're outraged, take it up with the government. As far as I'm concerned, these firms shouldn't even be around.
But for those who supported the bailouts, what's with the surprise when the firms have to pay their employees? You don't expect some employee to be held accountable for Johnny Mack's dumd decisions did you?
If you're outraged, take it up with the government. As far as I'm concerned, these firms shouldn't even be around.
But for those who supported the bailouts, what's with the surprise when the firms have to pay their employees? You don't expect some employee to be held accountable for Johnny Mack's dumd decisions did you?
I don't think you quite understand the above post. The whole point is the bulk of the payout is NOT going to the employees, it is going to the John Macks.
Whereas, if anything, it should be the other way around. Not that I'm making any complaints per se, just that it's annoying to see the journalists make these misleading statements over and over.
I get to hear neighbors whining that all the employees at GS are getting 770,000 each, OMG! Wrong.
Get it now?
I think Goldman Sachs and MS keep forgetting they are owned by STOCKholders.
A couple of years ago, GS distributed $16 billion, or $600,000 per employee.
They did not need to "do this" to retian their people. Few others are "doing this."
People will not be bolting. Bear, Lehman and others have gone down the toilet. There are lots of qualified financial engineers and quants looking for work.
A couple of years ago, GS distributed $16 billion, or $600,000 per employee.
They did not need to "do this" to retian their people. Few others are "doing this."
People will not be bolting. Bear, Lehman and others have gone down the toilet. There are lots of qualified financial engineers and quants looking for work.
Where are they going to 'bolt' to? Garbage collection in NYC? Even that job has 1000's wanting it.
The top assholes are just crooks & the American bagholder/shareholder has absolutely no say in how a corporate business is run, especially when it comes to reigning in the pay of the top THIEVES.
The top assholes are just crooks & the American bagholder/shareholder has absolutely no say in how a corporate business is run, especially when it comes to reigning in the pay of the top THIEVES.
1) The employees made money
2) The company is only worth as much as the sum of their intellectual capital
3) Why not pay the employees accordingly?
4) These companies are publicly owned, why if you don't hold the stock should you care? And if you do hold the stock then pass something at an annual meeting to cap bonusses (not going to work and watch the stock drop even harder.)
Everyone complaining about people making money just irritates me. The rules/laws have been set. Within these laws companies such as Goldman and others have made and later lost a lot of money. When they lost a lot of money the government handed them cash to dig themselves out of the hole they had created. The deal was made and NO ARRANGEMENTS were made on future compensation. Goldman payed back the funds when they no longer needed them, then bought back the option as far as I am concerned as a tax payer and an individual case closed.
Why complain after the fact?
Its like losing a game and then complaining afterwards that its not fair? If you didn't agree you shouldn't have played in the first place.
The US has had an incredibly accomodating business tax regime allowing these companies to pay less in tax than many may find fair but to complain about what GS does with money they earned (yes with taxpayer money, but fairly with taxpayer money) is ridiculous. Its as many would rather see GS drown like AIG, wasting another $10B of taxpayer $s instead of having them pay it back with and extra 1.1B for the option which was part of the initial deal.
The world is not a fair place, so why complain about it, just do all you can to get as much out if it as you can, if you feel good making a buck knowingly screwing over someone else do so, if you would rather help people tha oppertunity is as great now as it has in the past.
2) The company is only worth as much as the sum of their intellectual capital
3) Why not pay the employees accordingly?
4) These companies are publicly owned, why if you don't hold the stock should you care? And if you do hold the stock then pass something at an annual meeting to cap bonusses (not going to work and watch the stock drop even harder.)
Everyone complaining about people making money just irritates me. The rules/laws have been set. Within these laws companies such as Goldman and others have made and later lost a lot of money. When they lost a lot of money the government handed them cash to dig themselves out of the hole they had created. The deal was made and NO ARRANGEMENTS were made on future compensation. Goldman payed back the funds when they no longer needed them, then bought back the option as far as I am concerned as a tax payer and an individual case closed.
Why complain after the fact?
Its like losing a game and then complaining afterwards that its not fair? If you didn't agree you shouldn't have played in the first place.
The US has had an incredibly accomodating business tax regime allowing these companies to pay less in tax than many may find fair but to complain about what GS does with money they earned (yes with taxpayer money, but fairly with taxpayer money) is ridiculous. Its as many would rather see GS drown like AIG, wasting another $10B of taxpayer $s instead of having them pay it back with and extra 1.1B for the option which was part of the initial deal.
The world is not a fair place, so why complain about it, just do all you can to get as much out if it as you can, if you feel good making a buck knowingly screwing over someone else do so, if you would rather help people tha oppertunity is as great now as it has in the past.