Hysteria over bonuses/Question Time

[Denny Crane!]

It seems to be the new popular fad. Hysteria in the media and some of the public about bankers getting bonuses and mainly this week the 47 Million pounds given to the ministry of defence.

A lot of these bonuses are paid to people earning less than £15000 a year. They could have excelled and surpassed all targets set them and are not responsible for the failures of an administration.

The people who cry out ''what about the soldiers who died, if the money had gone to them....!'' for gods sake it is a war and soldiers are going to die. But performance based bonuses are a good idea for low paid adminstrative structures to improve productivity and make workplaces more efficient.

Not to much of a point except to say the media get worked up over nothing, the only comfort is on question time the general public seemed quite resilient to the storm in a teacup.

Oh and Will Self is a genius. I loved his complete embarrasment of the Tory Posh bint.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...me_12_11_2009/

For the Brits who missed it.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It is jealousy. These men and women earn their bonuses by delivering massive ing profits to their companies. This is a good thing.

[Thorn777]

This is a good thing.

But not by any means.

Though of course the bonus-issue is one of little actual relevance, has a populist ring to it, and is a good subject to disguise the impotence of politicians on the actual issues.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

It is jealousy. These men and women earn their bonuses by delivering massive ing profits to their companies. This is a good thing.

(Ack, spit, sputter) Ferrets54 is right. (cough) I think I'm going to vomit.

[Erik]

(Ack, spit, sputter) Ferrets54 is right. (cough) I think I'm going to vomit.

He's right?
Really?

So how much profit has the ministry of defense made last year, exactly?

I can't view the video because I'm not in the UK, but from what I understand people are only angry about bonuses being payed with tax money (either to government employees or to banks who got billions in tax money to survive), they aren't angry at CEO's from non-subsidized companies earning big bonuses.

As for wanting to regulate the bonus structure: that again is just to prevent CEO's from running their companies into the ground and holding up their hands to the tax payer with threats of mass layoffs if they don't get bailed out.

[JP226]

It is jealousy. These men and women earn their bonuses by delivering massive ing profits to their companies. This is a good thing.

I'm trying to figure out a way not to agree with this but I can't... bring myself to... agree

[Mangalore]

It is jealousy. These men and women earn their bonuses by delivering massive ing profits to their companies. This is a good thing.

It depends. There are plenty of bankers who would have bankrupted their companies (thus making all the other decent bankers jobless) without government intervention so the anger of the common taxpayer that the government is giving the a blanche card at their expense is quite understandable, esspecially if plenty of other industries ask their workers to cut back on their income for the sake of the company. So that there is an outrage is quite to be expected if someone's company is in jeopardy, he asked to cut back on his income but he sees the causing factor getting billions of taxmoney to prevent them from going belly up.

It's not rational but quite detached from reality to not expect precisely this from happening when many people are struggling and fear the loss of their jobs but see others get special treatment. They want special treatment, too!

[Rt. Hon. Gentleman]

It seems to be the new popular fad. Hysteria in the media and some of the public about bankers getting bonuses and mainly this week the 47 Million pounds given to the ministry of defence.

A lot of these bonuses are paid to people earning less than £15000 a year. They could have excelled and surpassed all targets set them and are not responsible for the failures of an administration.

The people who cry out ''what about the soldiers who died, if the money had gone to them....!'' for gods sake it is a war and soldiers are going to die. But performance based bonuses are a good idea for low paid adminstrative structures to improve productivity and make workplaces more efficient.

Not to much of a point except to say the media get worked up over nothing, the only comfort is on question time the general public seemed quite resilient to the storm in a teacup.

Oh and Will Self is a genius. I loved his complete embarrasment of the Tory Posh bint.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...me_12_11_2009/

For the Brits who missed it.

I regret to say it, but the American "Dem darn Communist Fascist Terrorists messing up our lives in deir conspiracies" mania has come to Britain. "Blame everyone but yourself" culture.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's completely populist. It's raw mob jealousy. A herd angry at.. at... something, damnit!

[Thorn777]

It took that shape, for sure, though I believe bonuses need some form of regulation as well, depending on the position of the receiver and form of bonuses of course.

For instance CEO's should only be allowed to cash in after several years went by, but talking about the height of a bonus etc is just nonsense.

[removeduser_487563287433]

It took that shape, for sure, though I believe bonuses need some form of regulation as well, depending on the position of the receiver and form of bonuses of course.

For instance CEO's should only be allowed to cash in after several years went by, but talking about the height of a bonus etc is just nonsense.

Why? Why should you have any input at all over how somebody gets paid?

[Thorn777]

Why? Why should you have any input at all over how somebody gets paid?

Because personal interests go/went all to often against the business interests this person is running.

Then there are numerous law-obeying, taxpaying, and lets not forget voting citizens directly connected and affected to these business interests in our still democratic system.

With such a regulation you don't hurt anyone, not even the CEO's bank account, you just make sure you have a higher guarantee for responsible decision makings on the top.

Would also be easy to implement.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

It seems to be the new popular fad. Hysteria in the media and some of the public about bankers getting bonuses and mainly this week the 47 Million pounds given to the ministry of defence.

A lot of these bonuses are paid to people earning less than £15000 a year. They could have excelled and surpassed all targets set them and are not responsible for the failures of an administration.

The people who cry out ''what about the soldiers who died, if the money had gone to them....!'' for gods sake it is a war and soldiers are going to die. But performance based bonuses are a good idea for low paid adminstrative structures to improve productivity and make workplaces more efficient.

Not to much of a point except to say the media get worked up over nothing, the only comfort is on question time the general public seemed quite resilient to the storm in a teacup.

Oh and Will Self is a genius. I loved his complete embarrasment of the Tory Posh bint.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...me_12_11_2009/

For the Brits who missed it.

I think the anger comes from the ministry of defence being not fit for purpose. When was the last time a procurement project came in on time and on budget?

[removeduser_487563287433]

So you honestly think these businesses are paying people more than they earn for that business?

These people who are skilled enough to get bonuses are no less law-obeying, taxpaying and voting citizens, so hands off their hard earned money, Robin Hood.

[Thorn777]

So you honestly think these businesses are paying people more than they earn for that business?

Well, keeping the lately omni-present fiasco's that not to long ago looked like nice profits aside, you misunderstood me I guess.

I'm sure they are all worth every penny and I'm not talking about salary-caps, I'm talking about a mechanism on bonuses payed in company stocks.

These people who are skilled enough to get bonuses are no less law-obeying, taxpaying and voting citizens, so hands off their hard earned money, Robin Hood.

Very nice wordplay Sheriff, but I guess once more you misinterpret me, or didnt get the connection that infact a government acting on behalf of its public electorate can still(and does) set guidelines to play by.

Last time I checked libertarianism is still a fantasy of the same sort as communism.

You might reconsider your emotional response...

[removeduser_487563287433]

Can you be more specific than a vague reference to a mechanism?

And my response isn't emotional, it is very basic. You are proposing pointless and counterproductive regulation to punish the successful to saite the stupidity of the mob.

[Thorn777]

For instance CEO's should only be allowed to cash in after several years went by, but talking about the height of a bonus etc is just nonsense.

^Nothing pointless and counterproductive about that.

and

With such a regulation you don't hurt anyone, not even the CEO's bank account, you just make sure you have a higher guarantee for responsible decision makings on the top.

Would also be easy to implement.

[removeduser_487563287433]

^Nothing pointless and counterproductive about that.

and

It's totally pointless. These people earn their massive livings by being experts in getting round financial loopholes and generating profits. This wont make them stop for breath. Its waste of time when there's a recession to be fighting and you shouldn't be punishing the people responsible for generating a considerable proportion of this country's wealth.

[Ahlerich]

problem is the often enough get horendous bonuses even if they failed in their job. example would be failed bankers that got saved by stimuli/tax payer money that already take bonuses. they got s of money for failing their job.
also there just needs to be a limit. you cant lay off people to save 1000000$ and pay the manager that got the idea 50000000$.
this created unrest in our already strongly devided societies.

its a blade with 2 edges, i realize that. managers are crucial for a company and if their wages are limited the companies wont get the quality managers they need. still this bonus/wage of manager increas was spiraling up for two long. there needs to be a reasonable relation between what they are worth and what they are paid.

oh and for those that are angry about people beeing angry about horrendous bonus payments: blame democracy. democracy lives of people talking, complaining and demanding. kinda uncomfortable i know.

[Viking Prince]

problem is the often enough get horendous bonuses even if they failed in their job. example would be failed bankers that got saved by stimuli/tax payer money that already take bonuses. they got s of money for failing their job.
also there just needs to be a limit. you cant lay off people to save 1000000$ and pay the manager that got the idea 50000000$.
this created unrest in our already strongly devided societies.

its a blade with 2 edges, i realize that. managers are crucial for a company and if their wages are limited the companies wont get the quality managers they need. still this bonus/wage of manager increas was spiraling up for two long. there needs to be a reasonable relation between what they are worth and what they are paid.

oh and for those that are angry about people beeing angry about horrendous bonus payments: blame democracy. democracy lives of people talking, complaining and demanding. kinda uncomfortable i know.

Regarding the idea of performance based compensation:

So how does CEO compensation differ from say a professional sports figure taking down a large sum that also includes a signing bonus. Compensation is often based on expected performance. Heck, the local guy getting a salary with annual reviews is not paid strictly on piece work so there is already an element of expectations built into the salary. The college graduate commands a great deal more salary in their first year than they are worth -- it is the expectation that if they stay and continue to mature that they will become valuable labor assets for the firm. So again, why does it matter how much a CEO gets paid under contract and what forms the payment consists of?

Bonuses are often paid to retain executives for expected future performance and not strictly for past accomplishments. So again, the bonus is not really tied to actual past value added to the company. This is why many companies issue stock warrants to tie the executive performance to future gains or declines in the market valuaation of the corporate publicly traded stock.

Regarding the idea of regulation of compensation:

How or why would any government entity be better at determining the worth of an executive? i am making no claim that executives are not occasionally over paid. I would also suspect that some executives are under paid to what they are worth. Shouldn't the owners of the business and the executives involved be allowed to make errors in compensation contracts? It is their money involved in these compensation contracts.