Surprise, surprise. Transocean Execs Getting huge bonus for their "performance" 2010

[PeshakJang]

If they do get fines, as long as they pay I really don't care what they do with the rest of their money. It's their business.

Fern

That's apparently the root of the issue. In a liberal utopia, if you get a traffic ticket, any money left over after you pay the fine should only be spent in a manner deemed appropriate by the rest of society.

After all, most liberals believe that the money never belonged to the individual to begin with. This belief is not disputed.

 

[Matt1970]

Once again people thinking they are entitled to other people's money.

 

[PeshakJang]

Once again people thinking they are entitled to other people's money.

If that mentality didn't exist, the Democrat party would not exist.

Fact234

 

[fskimospy]

If that mentality didn't exist, the Democrat party would not exist.

Fact234

No such party exists anyway, so we're good to go!

 

[AMCRambler]

That's apparently the root of the issue. In a liberal utopia, if you get a traffic ticket, any money left over after you pay the fine should only be spent in a manner deemed appropriate by the rest of society.

After all, most liberals believe that the money never belonged to the individual to begin with. This belief is not disputed.

Here's what you seem to be oblivious to. In this country the rich are becoming exponentially richer at the expense of the middle class. Pension benefits that used to be a common thing no longer exist. Health care costs are being pushed onto the employees more and more with each "new" health care plan. 401k contributions trending downward and jobs being outsourced to other countries. They cut costs and corners at every turn and when shit blows up in their faces, people get hurt or killed, where is the culpability? Do they take responsibility for their actions? No. They fire the poor bastards they forced to do the dirty work and award themselves safety bonuses and huge pay increases. If you can't see the ethical/moral implications here you've got your head up your ass.

 

[umbrella39]

They have to retain their top talent.

This, if they don't pay crazy money to retain these people, they will go elsewhere and the company will fold!

 

[Zebo]

They are a private business can pay out bonuses and whatever else as they see fit. It's their money and it's only their (and their shareholdser) business; not ours.

An entirely seperate matter is any regulatory violation. That's the government's (and our's) business. It's up to the government to investigate and fine as appropriate. If they do get fines, as long as they pay I really don't care what they do with the rest of their money. It's their business.

Fern

They can pay out whatever we say. The very first thing they teach you in law is that “property” is a collection of legal rights. They are mental abstractions. Don't act like it's a universal truth.

 

[theevilsharpie]

In this country the rich are becoming exponentially richer at the expense of the middle class.

[citation needed]

 

[PeshakJang]

Here's what you seem to be oblivious to. In this country the rich are becoming exponentially richer at the expense of the middle class. Pension benefits that used to be a common thing no longer exist. Health care costs are being pushed onto the employees more and more with each "new" health care plan. 401k contributions trending downward and jobs being outsourced to other countries. They cut costs and corners at every turn and when shit blows up in their faces, people get hurt or killed, where is the culpability? Do they take responsibility for their actions? No. They fire the poor bastards they forced to do the dirty work and award themselves safety bonuses and huge pay increases. If you can't see the ethical/moral implications here you've got your head up your ass.

At least you're admitting that this is an emotional, irrational argument... rather than a logical one.

You're saying that a private company has no right to allocate profits the way it sees fit... they should instead allocate funds in a manner that the rest of society deems appropriate.

Not to mention the fact that your entire post is full of rhetoric and supposition... you have no idea how their company is run. You have no idea what these executives did or didn't do which led to anything. You have no idea what the overall safety record of the company looks like. Should they base their pay on the public visibility of their company's safety record? Should they base their pay on what the government determines in a report that was only meant to give the appearance of governmental action? Did they actually fire anybody that was "responsible"? How many "poor bastards" that do the dirty work also got bonuses this year?

These are the kinds of questions that you have no answer to, although you seem to think you do. That's the difference between a rational argument and a knee jerk.

 

[Thump553]

That's apparently the root of the issue. In a liberal utopia, if you get a traffic ticket, any money left over after you pay the fine should only be spent in a manner deemed appropriate by the rest of society.

After all, most liberals believe that the money never belonged to the individual to begin with. This belief is not disputed.

You do realize your rant is total horseshit, don't you? Maybe you don't as you have repeastedly posted this made up nonsense. You totally misrepresent what American liberalism is all about and then pretend your fiction is truth.

Reminds me of when I was a little kid and friends claimed Catholics sacrificed Prostestan babies. Absolute stupidity.

 

[Darwin333]

No real issue here. Transocean only leased the drilling rig to oil companies, like BP .. They are not liable for any misuse by BP engineers or drilling operators.

They don't just lease the rig to them. They also provide almost all of the operational manpower for the rig and often provide the support as well (food, fuel, etc.). The company renting the rig does have a "company man" on board who is pretty much the boss. The owner of the rig can technically override any decision by the company man but that almost never happens since the company man represents the people that sign their checks. The other sub-contractors, like Haliburton, are usually hired by the well owner as well.

I have drilled wells in the gulf for BP but not once have I ever received a check from them.

 

[PeshakJang]

You do realize your rant is total horseshit, don't you? Maybe you don't as you have repeastedly posted this made up nonsense. You totally misrepresent what American liberalism is all about and then pretend your fiction is truth.

Reminds me of when I was a little kid and friends claimed Catholics sacrificed Prostestan babies. Absolute stupidity.

It's a statement made repeatedly by those on the left, and backed up by their actions. Facts are facts... don't blame me.

 

[Thump553]

It's a statement made repeatedly by those on the left, and backed up by their actions. Facts are facts... don't blame me.

Link to at least one specific instance of a liberal spouting this nonsense you claim-put up or shut up.

 

[CycloWizard]

Link to at least one specific instance of a liberal spouting this nonsense you claim-put up or shut up.

This argument is made every day, perhaps unknowingly. Either we have a right to property or we don't. If you get to determine how my money is spent (whether my personal money or that of my company), then it's not really my money, is it? If you think you have as much or more of a right to my income as I do, then it's not really my money, is it? Why should I work to make money if you can simply vote to take it from me?

edit: To directly address your request, here is an entire thread about it:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2155769
For example, the opening paragraph of that OP article:

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

Note that the article clearly states that "people take...the nation's income."

 

[AMCRambler]

At least you're admitting that this is an emotional, irrational argument... rather than a logical one.

You're saying that a private company has no right to allocate profits the way it sees fit... they should instead allocate funds in a manner that the rest of society deems appropriate.

I'm not saying that a private company does have the right to allocate profits as they see fit. I'm saying that a private company and it's officers should not be allowed to kill it's employees through negligence and destroy our environment and not be held accountable. To hell with the money, it's just the icing on the cake. These people should be locked up. Instead, they pay off the government, they pay off the victims and then give themselves bonuses.

This is not an emotional or irrational issue although you seem convinced that's what we're talking about. It's an ethical/moral/legal issue. Let me ask you this, what is the price of a human life? Seems to me like Transocean has established what that cost is and have no problem paying it. It wouldn't surprise me if their financial analysts have done the math to determine savings from their cost cutting measures vs the statistical probability of another Deep Water Horizon. Pretty sickening. You sit there and say prove it or I won't believe it's happening. Well if we could prove it, they'd be behind bars already. I compare people like you to the German's during WWII that refused to believe that the Nazi's were committing mass genocide of the Jews. "It's all just Allied propaganda. Our precious Fuhrer would never allow this."

Wake up and smell the death.

 

[HomerJS]

______ says to much regulation, too much regulation. Keep the federal government out of the way of private business. The private sector will self regulate!!


Fill in the blank.

 

[CycloWizard]

______ says to much regulation, too much regulation. Keep the federal government out of the way of private business. The private sector will self regulate!!


Fill in the blank.

Existing regulations weren't enforced due to government corruption. Adding more paperwork that small companies have to fill out to be in compliance only helps the big companies by giving them a competitive advantage and creating a barrier to entry for the small guy.

 

[PottedMeat]

They're donating (some) of their bonuses:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110406/ts_alt_afp/usoilpollutionenvironmentpay


Wonder how much the families of the 11 will get in the end.

 

[actuarial]

You're saying that a private company has no right to allocate profits the way it sees fit... they should instead allocate funds in a manner that the rest of society deems appropriate.

NO ONE (not even you), wants to live in a world where there is some kind of corporate anarchy. You argument about allowing companies to do whatever they want is as ridiculous as saying they should always act however society wants.

Now for the current thread - I haven't read anything which details how much of their bonus is tied to safety. Should their performance in other areas not be rewarded even if not given anything for safety?

Now with that said, just because a major accident happened does not NECESSARILY mean that people shouldn't be getting a safety bonus. Who is more entitled to a bonus? Executive A who keeps current safety procedures where there's a 10% chance of a major accident every year, but one doesn't happen this year. Executive B who upgrades safety procedures and research/statistics show there's only a 1% chance of a major accident every year, but one happened to occur this year.

If someone bets me even money that a roulette roll will show 30 (I get paid if it shows anything other than 30), and it happens to show 30, did I make a bad bet?

 

[Abwx]

They can pay out whatever we say. The very first thing they teach you in law is that “property” is a collection of legal rights. They are mental abstractions. Don't act like it's a universal truth.

Very true..
This has been demonsrated by jurist Hans Kelsen in the 30s.
Right of property is only a convention, not a right.

 

[AMCRambler]

They're donating (some) of their bonuses:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110406/ts_alt_afp/usoilpollutionenvironmentpay


Wonder how much the families of the 11 will get in the end.

Well at least it seems like they may have some type of conscience and realize they got away with murder, but here they are putting that price tag on lives. Would they have done it if they hadn't been publicly ostracized for getting bonuses to begin with? Probably not. Pretty skeezy.

 

[McWatt]

[citation needed]

http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf

 

[theevilsharpie]

http://www.levy.org/pubs/wp_502.pdf

Insufficient. Your source shows that the very wealthy are increasing their wealth, while the wealth of middle-income earners is remaining stagnant or decreasing slightly. We know that already.

The [citation needed] was in response to the statement that middle-income earners are stagnating because the rich are getting richer. Although I admit I only skimmed your source, it doesn't appear to address that particular line of reasoning.

 

[fskimospy]

This argument is made every day, perhaps unknowingly. Either we have a right to property or we don't. If you get to determine how my money is spent (whether my personal money or that of my company), then it's not really my money, is it? If you think you have as much or more of a right to my income as I do, then it's not really my money, is it? Why should I work to make money if you can simply vote to take it from me?

edit: To directly address your request, here is an entire thread about it:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2155769
For example, the opening paragraph of that OP article:

Note that the article clearly states that "people take...the nation's income."

If you're going to continue to peddle this I guess someone has to shoot it down.

'Take' has many definitions, including the #1 definition of take as a verb, which is how the article uses it:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/take

v. 'To acquire possession'

Now lets look at the word 'national income': http://www.thefreedictionary.com/national+income

n. The total net value of all goods and services produced within a nation over a specified period of time, representing the sum of wages, profits, rents, interest, and pension payments to residents of the nation.

Nowhere in that definition is 'national income' defined as being the property of the nation as a whole as opposed to private property, and nowhere in the verb 'take' is such a word implying any impropriety.

It is perfectly reasonable to speak of the nation of the United States as collectively having an income, much as it has a national product. Are you against the term GNP/GDP as it implies that a nation's production can be measured collectively? These statements make no judgment as to who owns such production other than that it is created by residents of the state. This is how GNP/GDP can be used to measure North Korea's production as well as the United States'.

You basically flipped out because you didn't know the definition of words.

 

[PeshakJang]

Link to at least one specific instance of a liberal spouting this nonsense you claim-put up or shut up.

That's not theirs, that's a national resource, that's ours...

-Michael Moore on money and rich people

One example of a direct quote. Call him a non-representation of the left, but that sentiment is inferred in just about every statement made about concentration of wealth, taxes, rich people, etc. He just comes right out and says it.