Posted on 01/31/2009 4:11:50 PM PST by Eric Blair 2084
A bonus by any other name would smell just as sweet.
The fury over the fact that Wall Street paid out $18.4 billion in bonuses in 2008, the "sixth largest" amount in history, is about words and nothing else.
This isn't a compensation issue, it's a diction issue.
Outside of lower Manhattan, a "bonus" is a special, one-off reward for performance above and beyond what's expected of an employee. And if investment bankers had gotten $18.4 billion worth of bonuses in that traditional sense of the word, then of course it would be truly outrageous.
But on Wall Street, and at many law firms as well, a bonus is simply part, often the greater part, of your regular compensation. It may vary from year to year, but when you take one of these jobs, the understanding is that you'll be paid a base-salary and once a year you'll also get a "bonus."
The bonus varies in size from year to year, but it's not actually a "bonus" in the way most people think of the word. It's an expected part of your salary, delivered in a lump- sum near Christmastime. Historically, for many people on Wall Street, the base salary is much less than they could be earning elsewhere, but because they know they're getting a sizable "bonus," it makes sense for them to stay at their jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Try not leaving your waitress or bartender a 15% "bonus" next time you go out to dinner.
For a socialist, anyone making more than the minimum wage is making a bonus and it is outrageous.
Obama is a moron, an economic illiterate, a socialist, and a Marxist. So, what else can we expect him to do but demonize hard work and success.
By the time he is done with his Presidency, he would set a very high minimum wage and also introduce the idea of a maximum wage that is only marginally higher than the minimum wage.
New Yorkers voted this jerk in. Maybe some of them are having second thoughts?
This entire “bonus issue” is an Obama red herring to keep the focus off of his horrid pork/payback bill and on corporate America, continuing the process of every Marxist — that of demonizing capitalism and its system of rewards for work.
I don’t think all the public yet realizes what they are dealing with in the Oval Office now. He is a Marxist. Capitalism and all of its good points, ARE BAD. Get used to hearing it -— it won’t go away until he, and all of his Marxist goons in the Congress, go away.
Get ready for the critical vote of all time -— 2010.
We’re headed to French style socialism. Nobody gets “bonuses” or “tips” there.
When we were there a few years ago (wife dragged me), the waiters were all obnoxious jerks. They would put my check in their mouth as they put their jacket on and then put it down on the table.
I found out why. They don’t work on tips. They get a straight salary and can’t be fired.
These are Obama’s type of people. We should all speak their language.
Yep. It’s not like the “bonus” politicians make once they leave office - you know all of the sudden they are millionaires because they sell their influence to special interests and foreign governments. Perhaps Obama should deal with that first (but that won’t happen, because he wants to do it once he’s out of office, and some of his cabinet appointees, hint Tom Daschle, have already done it).
Whether we call it base salary, bonus, or "annual performance-adjusted block compensation," as he so glibly suggests, can we know what the dollar amounts are, so we can reevaluate our criticism based on solid numbers rather than squishy words?
1. Meet a goal, get extra cash. That's reasonable, just like commissions in sales are reasonable. Just make sure that the "goal/reward" isn't "still have a pulse on 12/31, get a hundred million dollars".
2. Profit sharing. If your company makes money some of it is passed back to the employees. Banks/brokers/car companies are losing money and begging the government for bailouts, which should equal "no bonus".
3. Silly CEO hijinks. High on the list of this was Bob Nardelli's $200 million severance payout from Home Depot. He failed as a CEO there. All he earned was a kick in the ass on the way out. Too many CEOs and directors are on each other's compensation committees making the pay decisions way too incestuous. "Why, yes I'll give your a raise. Will you give me a raise too? Good!"
Just an anecdotal typical story from someone in the unwashed masses. Someone works as a junior analyst makes $55k in base salary, lives in Manhattan and works 100 hours per week. That 40k "bonus" is expected.
What they need to do is increase the base salaries and stop calling it a bonus. Problem solved. It’s semantics.
Try not paying a “bonus” (what you call a tip) to your bartender or waitress and rewarding them based only on a good job. After all, a single mother should be able to get by on $2/hour without the tips.
I tried it once. Had a $100 bar tab at my cousins birthday party. I was upset that they were rude and we had to wait half an hour for a beer, so I didn’t tip.
I was practically chased down the street by the angry woman and 3 of her burly illegal immigrant friends in the kitchen wearing aprons because I didn’t pay a “bonus”. I thought it was voluntary based on good performance. Silly me.
There is such a thing as an implicit guarantee which is really explicit.
I think it is a cultural problem, not whether there is tipping. There is little tipping in Australia (except tourists from overseas still tip) You are not expected to tip waiters or taxi drivers, or others, in Australia as they already get a good wage. But they, for the most part, are still friendly and do a good job.
If my server gives me poor service...I might not leave a tip...analagous to destroying your company and expecting bonuses on the taxpayer dime. CNBC is made up of former wall street employees-what else would they say?
They don’t work on tips in Australia either? Didn’t know that.
Too bad...when your company is in trouble, you don’t get bonuses...plenty in America are taking pay cuts...nonsense.
Ahhh sorry, not buying that one. Wall Street jobs do not readily translate, so I'm not ready to agree with the salary comparison.
I do, however, understand the main thrust of the article about these executives receiving the lion's share of their compensation through 'bonuses'. Pay fer performance. Isn't that the capitalist way?
See posts above. We are arguing over semantics.
What will happen is that there will be no “bonuses” for employees on Wall St. next year. They will increase the salary in people’s paychecks to account for the normally expected “bonus”.
Nobody has a problem with someone earning a “paycheck” right?
NO...if you think there is any sympathy for the Wall Street bankers except from their Mommies, think again...the average person in danger of losing their job because of these idiots will agree with him...even Fox business admits this mess began in the financial sector. No bonuses for bailed out companies. They should have the same limitations as autos.
We are not talking about “executives” here. Just your rank and file cubicle monkey.
This is the kind of stuff that FDR used to pull. Pick a capitalist bogeyman & hammer it. The Media will no doubt try to assist Obama in this endeavor, but the MSM is a shadow of it's former self in terms of influence.
Well if they increase their salaries like they did last year..they will be bankrupt for real because they should understand the taxpayers are furious and most if they had the chance would let them go...better make enough money to cover your own payroll next year...wall street. Election coming up so the gravy train will be over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.