News AIG bonus outrage has employees living in fear

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The outrage over AIG's executive bonuses has led to threats against employees, creating a climate of fear among them. Many express that while anger towards the bonuses is understandable, threatening individuals is unacceptable and constitutes criminal behavior. The situation highlights a broader public frustration with the economic crisis and perceived corporate irresponsibility, with Congress being criticized for its handling of the matter. Some argue that the bonuses were a legal necessity to avoid lawsuits, yet they have become a focal point for public anger. Overall, the discourse reflects deep societal tensions regarding accountability and the consequences of corporate actions during financial turmoil.
  • #31
I am sure that plenty of people will land in jail before this is over. There is no need for pitchforks or piano wire.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Astronuc said:
Now, this is getting silly. In a domestic dispute, both parties know each other. In the heat of the moment, both might say words out of anger. Either party can obtain a restraining order against the other, or seek legal intervention.

Wouldn't you say that this is happening in the heat of the moment? Your politicians and press are intentionally inciting people. These kinds of things happen when you play with fire.

Astronuc said:
I actually had a friend in college who was arrested and charged on one count of 'domestic terrorism' because he threatened his girlfriend. He was very drunk and upset at the time, and only after the fact (and his arrest) did he realize the stupidity of his action. A restraining order was filed against him.

This is actually shocking. Maybe the word means doesn't mean the same thing to both of us. Here the word terrorist is reserved only for the worst of the worst. The rest are just common criminals.
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
It is similar enough to be worrisome. At times like this, it is imperative that everyone's Constitutional protections are maintained. Among other things, the Constitution is intended to protect even the guilty from angry mobs. From where I sit, the whole country is acting like an angry mob right now.
Apparently there was a famine going on at the time. Food prices were so high that people spent between 50 and 90% of their wages just for bread.
This of course left little money for wine! No wonder they chopped the kings head off.

I don't know if it will pass muster or not, but while I do like the idea of taxing the hell out of the people who got this money, the entire notion of targeted taxation doesn't pass the smell test for me. I think it can be logically, and perhaps even morally justified in the sense that the bonuses shouldn't have been paid, so we deserve to get our money back, but as they say, that horse already left the barn. The mistakes that led to the current dilemma were made long ago.

I disagree. AIG was effectively bankrupt. AIG now has a market cap of $3.9 billion. We gave them $180 billion. By my calculations, we own that company 46 times over. We are therefore the rightful shareholders of the company. If we say they shouldn't get a bonus, then they don't.

And because they did, I now consider it embezzlement. But even if it can't be legally classified as embezzlement, who wrote the contracts which awarded all the bonus's in the first place?

Gee, maybe I can write up a contract that says the US Government has to pay me a million dollars every year I don't emigrate to Canada. I'll just get it signed by the clerk down at the courthouse to make it legal.

Retention bonus my a**. I'll shed no tears for their pitchforked bloody corpses.
 
  • #34
OmCheeto said:
I disagree. AIG was effectively bankrupt. AIG now has a market cap of $3.9 billion. We gave them $180 billion. By my calculations, we own that company 46 times over. We are therefore the rightful shareholders of the company. If we say they shouldn't get a bonus, then they don't.

When you take over a company you also take on their liabilities and obligations. These are things you are supposed to look into before buying out a company. Perhaps there is a legal way around it but obviously someone was asleep at the wheel or had too much on their plate.

OmCheeto said:
I'll shed no tears for their pitchforked bloody corpses.
You don't know who these people are or what they did or did not do to contribute to the current situation. This comment disgusts me more than these bonuses.
 
  • #35
TheStatutoryApe said:
When you take over a company you also take on their liabilities and obligations. These are things you are supposed to look into before buying out a company. Perhaps there is a legal way around it but obviously someone was asleep at the wheel or had too much on their plate.

Again this gets back to what allegedly drove the initial decision to include the bonuses. As soon as you go to court, it will likely cost more than just paying the bonuses and being done with it. There is nothing to stop these people from suing over contract violations. Given the magnitude of the problems we face, putting this much effort into 0.09% of the AIG money - about 50 cents per US citizen - is senseless. The distraction to Congress could be far more costly to the nation.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
I guess all of that pressure had to vent somewhere...
 
  • #37
TheStatutoryApe said:
This comment disgusts me more than these bonuses.

I would suggest you avoid studying world history then. It was full of disgusting little things like that. I just finished reading up on the French revolution. It's amazing what peasants will do when you piss them off.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/Guillotine_model_1792.jpg/180px-Guillotine_model_1792.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
OmCheeto said:
I would suggest you avoid studying world history then. It was full of disgusting little things like that. I just finished reading up on the French revolution. It's amazing what peasants will do when you piss them off.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/Guillotine_model_1792.jpg/180px-Guillotine_model_1792.jpg
[/URL]

Yes, I enjoyed Dumas' Knight of Maison Rouge. So don't expect any sympathy for the people from me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
If people were nonplused would you find something wrong, Statutory? Any thing at all.

I've been waiting a good 5 years for the frickin mob to wake up.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Phrak said:
If people were nonplused would you find something wrong, Statutory?

I've been waiting a good 5 years for the frickin mob to wake up.

I certainly think that there is something wrong. I am just against the mob mentality and would like to see level heads prevail.
 
  • #41
Personally, I think professionals in the finance industry have been unfairly maligned in the media, which just fuels the fire. Many are quite noble, but the media fails to give them credit for their efforts - http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...-the-economy-down-vasectomy-rates-are-up.html

The article implies these decisions are based solely on selfish economic reasons. Clearly, professionals in the finance industry are beginning to realize their intellectual limitations and are nobly choosing to maintain the integrity of the world's gene pool.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
i feel that only death threats will probably remind people of what happens if they do the wrong thing. sure it can be destabilising but i think that the boys at AIG deserve this every single bit. i mean, come on, we are in the middle of a crisis and who on Earth will even think of bonuses. that too with govt money!
 
  • #43
BobG said:
Personally, I think professionals in the finance industry have been unfairly maligned in the media, which just fuels the fire. Many are quite noble, but the media fails to give them credit for their efforts - http://health.usnews.com/articles/h...-the-economy-down-vasectomy-rates-are-up.html

The article implies these decisions are based solely on selfish economic reasons. Clearly, professionals in the finance industry are beginning to realize their intellectual limitations and are nobly choosing to maintain the integrity of the world's gene pool.

please tell me what steps AIG execs have done to get them out of this mess. only mean this as a question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
OmCheeto said:
By my calculations, we own that company 46 times over. We are therefore the rightful shareholders of the company. If we say they shouldn't get a bonus, then they don't.

And because they did, I now consider it embezzlement. But even if it can't be legally classified as embezzlement, who wrote the contracts which awarded all the bonus's in the first place?
Well, we didn't make that decision. The Obama administration chose to help AIG avoid bankruptcy (which would have gotten them out of their obligation to pay the bonuses). In other words, if by we you mean the gov't, then we told them they had to pay the bonuses.

But who wants an insurance policy with a company so dishonest and unrespectable they would even try to get out of their contractual obligations? Not a good advertisement for a company that relies on people trusting them to honor their contracts.
 
  • #45
has even one person been charged
not the pure ripoffs like madoff
but the overpaid fools who created this current mess

like whoever approved the lyers loans ideas [low or no doc loans]
or the credit default swaps
or not useing due diligence in investing other people moneys

these people should be in fear if there is any justice
but knowing how the system works
they will bribe [pay-off] their way out
and about the only way to get real justice
will be the mob and their pitchforks
 
  • #47
Pitchforks and Colbert...

Thank you John Stewart.
 
  • #48
LowlyPion said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29756163/displaymode/1107/s/2/

Looks like that pretty much expresses the National mood about AIG execs.

I note that MSNBC is now reporting that most of the top bonuses are being returned by AIG execs. Maybe shame works.

I was very happy to hear Obama rejecting the targeted taxation. He went right the Constitution and cried foul. He also called for a sane and legal approach.

Once again, Obama steps up to the plate and hits a home run.
 
  • #49
Astronuc said:
I was thinking last night that the situation is beginning to sound like the French Revolution.
We say "on ne fait pas une omelette sans casser des oeufs". Which means "you can not make an omelet without breaking eggs" o:)

But during the french revolution, there was one (probably apocryphal) essential ingredient : the first lady referring to the hungry angry mob saying "If they have no bread, they should eat brioche". I think this time the first lady knows that the brioche is not big enough for the crowd.

Actually, the US seem to handle the bonus issue much better than France...
 
Last edited:
  • #50
humanino said:
We say "on ne fait pas une omelette sans casser des oeufs". Which means "you can not make an omelet without breaking eggs" o:)

But during the french revolution, there was one (probably apocryphal) essential ingredient : the first lady referring to the hungry angry mob saying "If they have no bread, they should eat brioche". I think this time the first lady knows that the brioche is not big enough for the crowd.

Reminds me a bit of the Republicans who were claiming that the economy is just fine even as the market was beginning to crash.

Actually, the US seem to handle the bonus issue much better than France...

If things get better soon we'll be fine. We are hanging from a cliff but think we have a firm handhold. If we slip and things go badly, lookout!

Obama may go down as one of the greatest Presidents ever, but only because the situation is so dire. As you know, the stars shine brightly when it is darkest.
 
  • #51
Ivan Seeking said:
Reminds me a bit of the Republicans who were claiming that the economy is just fine even as the market was beginning to crash.
I was referring to the current administration. I will not raise a polemic on whether those bonuses fit well in the global strategy adopted by the previous administration.
 
  • #52
humanino said:
I was referring to the current administration. I will not raise a polemic on whether those bonuses fit well in the global strategy adopted by the previous administration.

Yes, the Obamas certainly know it what it means to be poor.

There has been a bit of discussion about how the Obamas may be the most normal first family that we have seen in a very long time. But a depression of the sort threatened would take things to a level never seen in this country in modern times. Any spark is capable of starting a fire.
 
  • #53
I understand AIG got 170 Billion USD, and these bonuses total 165 million. Does anyone else wonder what was done with the other $169,835,000,000 ?? Was that spent 'wisely'? 'effectively'? ??
 
  • #55
signerror said:
A damning editorial will appear in the Times today. By an A.I.G. executive who just resigned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=all

It is instructive that the writer has received the bonus and is not instead choosing to simply return it. Apparently 15 of the top 20 have made that choice.

Absent from his apparently noble posturing and self-serving statement is recognition that the company failed, so spectacularly, to the extent that it would no longer exist even, were it not for public monies and that his bonus would never have been paid in the first place. Absent is his recognition that his efforts how ever well intentioned, how ever assiduously performed has led to failure. His expectation that he would expect to benefit then when the country is footing the bill for the failure he has participated in is a trifle presumptuous.

When the waiter spills dinner in your lap, surely he doesn't expect a tip still.
 
  • #56
lowlypion, nothing in your comments suggests that you have even read the letter. Or do you really believe that all of the thousands of people who worked in any of the AIG divisions are equally responsible?
 
  • #57
gmax137 said:
lowlypion, nothing in your comments suggests that you have even read the letter. Or do you really believe that all of the thousands of people who worked in any of the AIG divisions are equally responsible?

I don't see the letter as speaking for all AIG employees. I see the letter as a self serving piece for the executive involved to feel better about himself and appear on the public stage in noble pose. I think it's great that he worked for $1. But he chose to take a gamble and maybe see an out-sized return in the event that AIG had smelled like a rose this year, as opposed to a pigsty.

I don't see him taking personal responsibility for his choices and the fact that his gamble to reap a bigger compensation didn't payoff. Maybe he should have taken a lesser but more certain salary? But he didn't. He gambled. He lost.

The company but for Federal Money would not have survived to pay any bonuses at all. Salaries apparently it would have paid. If AIG would have paid off at double the rate this year if things went well would he have refused more than he got? Salary is salary, and bonus is bonus and is at risk. He lost and he should get over it.

Moreover his offer to contribute to a charity serves no useful purpose, when agreeing as others have to return the bonus would make a surer statement, though not drawing attention to himself, and still leave his hands clean.
 
  • #58
So, when this guys writes,
" I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage."

You don't believe him? Or you think everyone who worked at AIG is "guilty?" Which is it?

Or is it just the notion of a 'bonus' that burns you up? What about all the hourly employees at GM that we (the taxpayers) are now paying to take retirement? Is that OK? Why should I pay someone a bonus to *stop* working, really?
 
  • #59
LowlyPion said:
Moreover his offer to contribute to a charity serves no useful purpose, when agreeing as others have to return the bonus would make a surer statement, though not drawing attention to himself, and still leave his hands clean.
Not to mention that he'll be able to get a tidy tax deduction for contributing it to a charity. I wonder what charity?
 
  • #60
If the government had a problem with the bonuses, then they should have withheld the amount from the money given to AIG, and not threatened the individuals with a 90% tax that was essentially punitive.

I don't see Jake DeSantis's letter as being self-serving. He simply lies it out as he sees it. Those bonuses are nothing compared to what other companies have paid out, and it was norm until this quarter. DeSantis makes the point that none of those receiving the bonuses were responsible for the Credit Default Swaps that brought AIG down.

Should DeSantis and others be held accountable for what others did within the company, especially when they were not involved or responsible? Most companies are so compartmentalized that one group certainly doesn't know what another group is doing. They learn about it as information trickles in from others or management.

Are the bonuses excessive? Well some will say yes and others no.


LowlyPion said:
When the waiter spills dinner in your lap, surely he doesn't expect a tip still.
I'm not sure this is relevant. It's more like another waiter or customer spill water, and your waiter does the best he can to address the situation.