Financial News

[southsider2k5]

You completely missed my point. Is the government lacking in specialized skills with demanding hours because they don't pay truckloads of bonuses?

 

Actually yes. That is why people leave the government for the private sector all of the time. You want a great example? Look at pretty much all of the groups regulating all of the individual pieces of the financial sector. They completely failed, and a large portion of that was people who don't have the skills or knowledge to do their jobs.

[southsider2k5]

I buy it all day. You really think, if you work your way down the org chart, at a large financial firm, that there is some ginormous drop off from C-level to Senior VP level? Or from CEO to ther C-level? Or from SVP to VP/JVP? No way. They all moved up the chain at some point. Its not a giant step after level ground, its small steps at each level. In fact, I'd say the transition we are talking about for, say, an SVP to a C-level job, internal to a firm, is usually going to be faster, than hiring a similar C-level guy from elsewhere.

 

If it was really that easy, why aren't boards dumping entire executive teams and saving millions of dollars?

[NorthSideSox72]

If it was really that easy, why aren't boards dumping entire executive teams and saving millions of dollars?

For the same reason they aren't kicking out executives who pay themselves too much. Boards and executives are like a fun little club, often so intertwined that there is no real check and balance there. Furthermore, as I am sure you know, the markets have pretty much decided that executive pay is not something worth worrying about when dealing in stocks. So, the Board generally has no motivation to boot them.

 

It is, IMO, an inherent weakness in the system.

 

[southsider2k5]

For the same reason they aren't kicking out executives who pay themselves too much. Boards and executives are like a fun little club, often so intertwined that there is no real check and balance there. Furthermore, as I am sure you know, the markets have pretty much decided that executive pay is not something worth worrying about when dealing in stocks. So, the Board generally has no motivation to boot them.

 

It is, IMO, an inherent weakness in the system.

 

When a company is going bankrupt, they have a choice. If it were really an option, SOMEONE would have done it by now. When you are talking about millions of dollars being hemorraged, and the big factor is a companies stock price at the board level. They want that price up to protect their own investments. If they really thought it would fix the company, and save it money, they would have done it.

 

Seriously the suggestion you are making is akin to the White Sox releasing their entire team and calling up Birmingham to replace them because they are "professional baseball players" who are only two layers removed from the level the White Sox are at.

[lostfan]

Actually yes. That is why people leave the government for the private sector all of the time. You want a great example? Look at pretty much all of the groups regulating all of the individual pieces of the financial sector. They completely failed, and a large portion of that was people who don't have the skills or knowledge to do their jobs.

I set my argument up terribly and allowed myself to get smacked down here. I could change up and pretend I was saying something else and act like you misunderstood me but that'd be dishonest. lol.

 

My overall point was trying to tie into what NSS is saying. AIG's been badly mismanaged, so they can go cry me a river about 500k not being enough. And I have a hard time believing they will have such a hard time filling these positions and there aren't non-incompetent employees ready to step up.

[NorthSideSox72]

When a company is going bankrupt, they have a choice. If it were really an option, SOMEONE would have done it by now. When you are talking about millions of dollars being hemorraged, and the big factor is a companies stock price at the board level. They want that price up to protect their own investments. If they really thought it would fix the company, and save it money, they would have done it.

 

Seriously the suggestion you are making is akin to the White Sox releasing their entire team and calling up Birmingham to replace them because they are "professional baseball players" who are only two layers removed from the level the White Sox are at.

No, the suggestion I am making is firing a good bulk of the Nationals' roster (since we are, by nature, talking about utter failure here), and replacing them with the bext minor leaguers and major leaguers they can find, in their system OR others. And you are damn right they would do better.

 

Another analogy that works here, is Katrina. In both cases, some disaster occurs, that is partly caused by leadership failures within core companies or agencies, but also partly systemic (financial system, or environmental). Now, in a disaster like that, do you want the rebuilding done by the same people who caused the situation in the first place? No, you want new thoughts and ideas. You want the guy who leads the Army Corps of Engineers (or the company in question) to come into your office... see if they have a plan and will execute it within the difficult parameters set (pay, resources)... if they can't, you fire them, and get the next best guy available, and task them with the same thing.

[Y2HH]

I set my argument up terribly and allowed myself to get smacked down here. I could change up and pretend I was saying something else and act like you misunderstood me but that'd be dishonest. lol.

 

My overall point was trying to tie into what NSS is saying. AIG's been badly mismanaged, so they can go cry me a river about 500k not being enough. And I have a hard time believing they will have such a hard time filling these positions and there aren't non-incompetent employees ready to step up.

 

I agree.

 

And using double negatives to create a positive always leads to confusion. Or in your case, a triple negative.

 

And I have a hard time believing they will have such a hard time filling these positions and there aren't non-incompetent employees ready to step up.

 

"aren't non-incompetent"

 

I had to read that 300,543 times before I understood.

[lostfan]

Finding people who do not suck and would not be total failures, and do a better job than an aircraft carrier's previous captain who ran it aground.

[BigSqwert]

And using double negatives to create a positive always leads to confusion. Or in your case, a triple negative.

No, it isn't not easily misunderstood.

[Y2HH]

You are both so witty.

 

[BigSqwert]

You are both so witty.

 

[lostfan]

That is like a 2 1/2 negative isn't it?

[NorthSideSox72]

That is like a 2 1/2 negative isn't it?

Which makes it a half negative. Kinda like the Sox offseason so far.

[southsider2k5]

No, the suggestion I am making is firing a good bulk of the Nationals' roster (since we are, by nature, talking about utter failure here), and replacing them with the bext minor leaguers and major leaguers they can find, in their system OR others. And you are damn right they would do better.

 

Another analogy that works here, is Katrina. In both cases, some disaster occurs, that is partly caused by leadership failures within core companies or agencies, but also partly systemic (financial system, or environmental). Now, in a disaster like that, do you want the rebuilding done by the same people who caused the situation in the first place? No, you want new thoughts and ideas. You want the guy who leads the Army Corps of Engineers (or the company in question) to come into your office... see if they have a plan and will execute it within the difficult parameters set (pay, resources)... if they can't, you fire them, and get the next best guy available, and task them with the same thing.

 

So, if you you were one of the people rebuilding in NO after Katrina, you'd have no problem with the 26th, or the 51st ranking member of the Army Corp of Engineers coming to tell you about the plans, because the top ones all quit?

[NorthSideSox72]

So, if you you were one of the people rebuilding in NO after Katrina, you'd have no problem with the 26th, or the 51st ranking member of the Army Corp of Engineers coming to tell you about the plans, because the top ones all quit?

Maybe, maybe not. Like I said, I'd want to get rid of the ones who f***ed up, and find the best available next in line, or from elsewhere. I'd have no problem with that.

 

[StrangeSox]

Really though, how can anyone be expected to work for $500k? What is this, some third world country?

[mr_genius]

Really though, how can anyone be expected to work for $500k?

 

"That isn't America. That isn't even Mexico."

 

~Homer Simpson

Edited December 8, 2009 by mr_genius

[southsider2k5]

Really though, how can anyone be expected to work for $500k? What is this, some third world country?

 

Let me put it this way. How many of you would be willing to work for a fraction, namely about 5% of what your peers were getting paid? And how many of you would be willing to take on a massive rebuilding project, for nothing extra, to do it?

[StrangeSox]

How many people would be willing and capable to do the same job for less than tens of millions of dollars?

 

The "best and brightest" f***ed up the world's financial system. I'm at a loss for why we should pay them obscene amounts of money to fix what they broke. "Every CEO gets paid tens/ hundreds of millions!" is no better than "but the other kids are doing it!" I refuse to believe that companies get a net financial benefit when they pay CEO's the way they do,. They're rewarded with billions for taking big risks that pay off or they're rewarded with millions for failing miserably. The entire system is based on perverse incentives.

Edited December 8, 2009 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

How many people would be willing and capable to do the same job for less than tens of millions of dollars?

 

The "best and brightest" f***ed up the world's financial system. I'm at a loss for why we should pay them obscene amounts of money to fix what they broke. "Every CEO gets paid tens/ hundreds of millions!" is no better than "but the other kids are doing it!" I refuse to believe that companies get a net financial benefit when they pay CEO's the way they do,. They're rewarded with billions for taking big risks that pay off or they're rewarded with millions for failing miserably. The entire system is based on perverse incentives.

 

That is essentially the argument.

 

Keep in mind that minimum wage in the United States is an obscene amount to most of the entire world. You can make the same arguments for say unionized labor all over the country. How many people out there would support changing the entire American labor structure to work for minimum wage or less? The funny thing the same things are being said here, which are criticized when made in regards to labor.

[StrangeSox]

You can make the same argument multiplied by 1,000 for executives vs. most of the entire world, so that's a dead end for you.

 

They're criticized when made in regards to labor because we're not talking about a very small number of people being in the 99.999 percentile of wealthiest human beings to ever live while offering questionable value compared to compensation.

[southsider2k5]

You can make the same argument multiplied by 1,000 for executives vs. most of the entire world, so that's a dead end for you.

 

They're criticized when made in regards to labor because we're not talking about a very small number of people being in the 99.999 percentile of wealthiest human beings to ever live while offering questionable value compared to compensation.

 

Yet which group is costing companies the most amount of money?

[kapkomet]

Yet which group is costing companies the most amount of money?

And think before you answer this one...

 

[StrangeSox]

Yet which group is costing companies the most amount of money?

 

Executives. Labor at least adds value somewhat in line with wages, generally.

 

Kap, think carefully about net economic impact on the company, not just pure dollars.

[southsider2k5]

Executives. Labor at least adds value somewhat in line with wages, generally.

 

Kap, think carefully about net economic impact on the company, not just pure dollars.

 

Especially because in many of these cases, labor can be replaced by someone making pennies an hour, and nothing would change. It is totally labor.