AIG Bonuses are justified and necessary, an alternate view

Like everyone else I was initially outraged over these supposed AIG bonuses. But I have changed my mind on this and they need to pay these compensation contracts.

First of all these can not be performance bonuses, maybe they are attendance bonuses or bonuses that reward poor stock performance. Either way it seems that these bonuses were designed to be compensation for these bankers. It would be interesting to review these contracts. If these are performance bonuses and they performed then you can not destroy this culture of compensation for performance. Maybe we should pay our congress people this way (omg could you imagine the corruption?).

Secondly, you may think that these guys are a bunch of crooks; after all they drove this bus into a wall. So why should we allow these crooks to continue driving the bus after this major accident? Well the answer to this is that they knew exactly what they were doing. They understood the risk and they did it anyway because they were greedy. This does not necessarily mean that they are incompetent when it comes to performing the core of their job. They have a great deal of insight into how this thing is wrapped up and we need them to un-wrap the mess. So you may ask “why are we rewarding them for their greed and irresponsible actions?” Well inside of any group of people (AIG included) there are group relations and groups of people always revert to their lowest denominator. Group empathy is a powerful force and allows a group or a crowd to do things that the individual is not capable of. Hence the phrase “one bad apple spoils the bushel.” We need to find the bad apples and eliminate them, keep the institutional knowledge and right the ship. You need to properly compensate the rest of the bushel.

My next point on this issue is that it is in your best interest to allow this company to run itself. This is absolutely not a democratically run institution and nor should it be. I will grant you the fact that because of this infusion of capital we are all investors, this investment is not by choice, and given this past year’s performance you would not invest under these circumstances. This does not give the mob the right or ability to make management decision. It is in your best interest to allow a management team run this company. I feel that as an 80% owner the government should have the voting rights to install whatever management team that they see fit and to properly compensate those individuals. Once in place investors need to allow the management team to run the business on a day to day basis and give them the freedom to make compensation decisions.

This point is a real sticky wicket because the government is the largest investor and the only possible investor. At the same time the government has no business whatsoever dictating employee compensation. So how does one straddle the line between government and investor? I am not sure but I know that the common ownership, control over the means of production (day to day operations), and the common specification of compensation, defines communism. All of you bail out complainers are doing your level best to promote communism. Congratulations!!

My last point is about Connecticut senator Chris Dodd. Dodd is considering a proposal of a bill that will tax these bonuses such that the government can reclaim 98% of this money. Well I have to say that I appreciate his creativity, though I heard this same idea on the Sound Off Connecticut show today, and I am not sure he can take the credit.  This idea is fun to think about but it is really bad and sets a precedent for government targeting a tiny set of individuals for unfair taxation. When you are the next target you’re not going to like it so much.

Posted in

Erik Blazynski

6 Comments

  1. Dimsdale on March 17, 2009 at 1:56 am

    Bingo, Erik.  Maybe we need another amendment to the Constitution: Equal taxation under the law.

    Dodd is just saying any and everything to take the focus off of his personal corruption.



  2. Dimsdale on March 17, 2009 at 2:28 am

    Here's a thought: just how different are these bonus contracts from the contracts that get, say, the UAW their astounding retirement benefits?  Which is costing the economy and businesses and you and me more?

    How long before the Obambi administration sets its sights on you, UAW and every other union?  Even if you contributed to his election.  Remember: a politicians self preservation overrides any and all debts and promises.  Obama epitomizes that.

    Food for thought……



  3. Tritonesam on March 17, 2009 at 4:50 am

    Regardless of contract provisions, the AIG bonuses are unjust because they overwhelmingly reward the few elite and penalize the many who have worked very hard to create and carry the company to success. If AIG "competent commanders" had conducted business wisely and carefully, there would be no consideration needed for any stimulus. But they did not. Yet, the thousands who have labored in the pit to create a great and vast company are consistently overlooked with impunity. This is hardly justice. Under normal conditions, do you think the company would even exist if those in the trenches stopped working? It most certainly would not. Then where would be those huge executive salaries? Could those executives accomplish anything at all without the cooperation of the multitudes in the trenches? I doubt it. I believe the "bonuses" are unjust when the company is broke, but the "almighty executives" continue to drain it.



  4. comanchepilot on March 17, 2009 at 4:54 am

    Tax the bonuses by changing the law after the money is paid.

    Great idea Chris – have you EVER actually READ the US Constitution?  The limits on the power of the Legislature in which you serve?  Article 1, Section 9?

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    Or is that just a creation of your opponents who are simply playing politics  . .  

    And its guys like YOU who folks in this nation somehow think are the mental giants we should be looking to for ideas to 'help us from this bad economy."  Scary.  Scary indeed.



  5. comanchepilot on March 17, 2009 at 4:55 am

    Tax the bonuses by changing the law after the money is paid.

    Great idea Chris – have you EVER actually READ the US Constitution?  The limits on the power of the Legislature in which you serve?  Article 1, Section 9?

    "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

    Or is that just a creation of your opponents who are simply playing politics  . .  

    And its guys like YOU who folks in this nation somehow think are the mental giants we should be looking to for ideas to 'help us from this bad economy."  Scary.  Scary indeed. 



  6. davis on March 17, 2009 at 6:08 am

    I believe that the whole "bonus" mentality is tailor made for abuse and misinterpretation. Are the payments a form of compensation or a reward for good FINANCIAL performance. Until we see what the "contracts" say it's just a lot of speculation. Fun to do, not very illuminating, but the modus operandi of most peope who post on this blog.



The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.