The Brain Drain

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

exar333

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2004
8,518
8
91
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: KMFJD
I don't understand the concept of receiving a bonus when your company lost money...

so joe in accounting who has nothing to do with this mess shouldnt get one? even though he bust his ass and finds mistakes and keeps everything going? so he should suffer?


not everyone who recieved a bonus were the reason the banks got in the mess. And how the people were hired teh "bonus" was a pretty much a gurentee.

No, Joe shouldn't get a bonus. Should an Enron janitor receive special treatment because the company crapped-out and get to keep his 401k? No. You win as a company, and lose as a company. It sucks that some people worked hard (and honest) but don't get a bonus. That's life, no one said it was always fair.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: ebaycj
The people who are leaving (that the article talked about) are the ones who WERE IN PROFITABLE DIVISIONS OF THE BANK AND WERE MAKING A SHIT TON OF MONEY FOR THE BANK.

They WERE NOT involved with the divisions that caused all this mess, yet they saw their pay drop by massive amounts due to TARP regulations on said banks.

It'd be like if you worked in a manufacturing plant for a company, and the director of finance for that company had sex with his secretary, and she filed and won a 10 billion dollar lawsuit against the company, and for that reason, and that reason alone, your pay (as a manufacturing plant worker) was dropped from $60k per year to $18k per year. If the company with a manufacturing plant in the next town over offered you the same type job, making your old $60k plus a raise of $5k, you would take it, no questions asked. Do not lie and tell us otherwise.

WTF is the difference between some bank exec and any other highly compensated professional? How about a talented VIP of HR, IT, take-your-pick who does their job and does it well getting their bonus, benefits, raise, etc cut because some asshat in sales or marketing didn't know what they were doing and ran the company off course. How is a well compensated bank exec different than the talented VIP outside of apparent self-entitlement?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: ExarKun333
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: KMFJD
I don't understand the concept of receiving a bonus when your company lost money...

so joe in accounting who has nothing to do with this mess shouldnt get one? even though he bust his ass and finds mistakes and keeps everything going? so he should suffer?


not everyone who recieved a bonus were the reason the banks got in the mess. And how the people were hired teh "bonus" was a pretty much a gurentee.

No, Joe shouldn't get a bonus. Should an Enron janitor receive special treatment because the company crapped-out and get to keep his 401k? No. You win as a company, and lose as a company. It sucks that some people worked hard (and honest) but don't get a bonus. That's life, no one said it was always fair.

and thats just fucking stupid. you start doing dumb shit like this when a company starts to look bad good luck keeping/hireing good people.

Not every company has good years. A good way to gurentee they don't have many good years is to kill morale and drive off good workers.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: ebaycj
The people who are leaving (that the article talked about) are the ones who WERE IN PROFITABLE DIVISIONS OF THE BANK AND WERE MAKING A SHIT TON OF MONEY FOR THE BANK.

They WERE NOT involved with the divisions that caused all this mess, yet they saw their pay drop by massive amounts due to TARP regulations on said banks.

It'd be like if you worked in a manufacturing plant for a company, and the director of finance for that company had sex with his secretary, and she filed and won a 10 billion dollar lawsuit against the company, and for that reason, and that reason alone, your pay (as a manufacturing plant worker) was dropped from $60k per year to $18k per year. If the company with a manufacturing plant in the next town over offered you the same type job, making your old $60k plus a raise of $5k, you would take it, no questions asked. Do not lie and tell us otherwise.

WTF is the difference between some bank exec and any other highly compensated professional? How about a talented VIP of HR, IT, take-your-pick who does their job and does it well getting their bonus, benefits, raise, etc cut because some asshat in sales or marketing didn't know what they were doing and ran the company off course. How is a well compensated bank exec different than the talented VIP outside of apparent self-entitlement?

Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: spidey07


Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.

When the company is in trouble, they (everyone) should be taking one for the team. My plant was completely proffitable last year (first time in 16 years) but because the rest of automotive sucked ass, I (and the rest of the people here) had to take a 5% paycut, zero raise this year as well as a permanently frozen pension - just like everyone else in the other non-profitting plants. Somehow, banking and investment people are different. They all get rewarded regardless of the company health, or so it seems.

The more I look back, the more I think the goverment should have let them go under.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: ebaycj
The people who are leaving (that the article talked about) are the ones who WERE IN PROFITABLE DIVISIONS OF THE BANK AND WERE MAKING A SHIT TON OF MONEY FOR THE BANK.

They WERE NOT involved with the divisions that caused all this mess, yet they saw their pay drop by massive amounts due to TARP regulations on said banks.

It'd be like if you worked in a manufacturing plant for a company, and the director of finance for that company had sex with his secretary, and she filed and won a 10 billion dollar lawsuit against the company, and for that reason, and that reason alone, your pay (as a manufacturing plant worker) was dropped from $60k per year to $18k per year. If the company with a manufacturing plant in the next town over offered you the same type job, making your old $60k plus a raise of $5k, you would take it, no questions asked. Do not lie and tell us otherwise.
WTF is the difference between some bank exec and any other highly compensated professional? How about a talented VIP of HR, IT, take-your-pick who does their job and does it well getting their bonus, benefits, raise, etc cut because some asshat in sales or marketing didn't know what they were doing and ran the company off course. How is a well compensated bank exec different than the talented VIP outside of apparent self-entitlement?
Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.
If the business (as a whole) wasn't losing absurdly large sums of money, sure.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,995
776
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: spidey07


Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.

When the company is in trouble, they (everyone) should be taking one for the team. My plant was completely proffitable last year (first time in 16 years) but because the rest of automotive sucked ass, I (and the rest of the people here) had to take a 5% paycut, zero raise this year as well as a permanently frozen pension - just like everyone else in the other non-profitting plants. Somehow, banking and investment people are different. They all get rewarded regardless of the company health, or so it seems.

The more I look back, the more I think the goverment should have let them go under.

Yeah, banking seems to be the only (or one of the few) industries where bonuses are expected based on how your unit does, no matter how badly the company does. At my company, salary increases were delayed 6 months, 401k matching reduced by 50%, and bonuses (even in profitable units) were reduced or eliminated.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,609
4,059
136
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The level of ignorance shown by some in this thread reflects the ignorance of the general population.

Ignorant people have the instant "hey, the same people that lost all that money are now leaving. Good riddance!" reaction. That's sheer stupidity of course, because there are many different parts to such a large organization, and within those parts there are some very talented people and some dolts. The vast majority (99%) of employees in these companies have absolutely nothing to do with the reason the companies were in need of TARP money.

Artificially restricting the salaries of some companies within the industry and not others will inevitably lead to massive brain drain. Sure, the brain drain does not happen as quickly as it normally would because the economy sucks, but make no mistake about it, the brain drain is inevitable as long as these companies can not pay their top talent at the same level as other companies.

To make this simpler to understand for those of you that don't get it, imagine citibank as a baseball team. The manager and GM sucked so bad that they ran the team into the ground. The pitching staff sucked, and the team lost 100 games last year. Now a new owner steps in, and in light of the crappy team performance decides to limit salaries for all players. Sure, the team as a whole stunk it up last year, but it might have a couple of really really good players (maybe a stud 3rd baseman) who are now free agents. Other teams are going to know who those one or two good players are, and they will make them a better offer. The one or two gems on the crappy team will leave, and that team will get even crappier. That's what we're seeing right now, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

HEY!! Stop talking about my Kansas City Royals like that :p
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: spidey07


Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.

When the company is in trouble, they (everyone) should be taking one for the team. My plant was completely proffitable last year (first time in 16 years) but because the rest of automotive sucked ass, I (and the rest of the people here) had to take a 5% paycut, zero raise this year as well as a permanently frozen pension - just like everyone else in the other non-profitting plants. Somehow, banking and investment people are different. They all get rewarded regardless of the company health, or so it seems.

The more I look back, the more I think the goverment should have let them go under.

I don't know if letting them go under would have been the answer or not. Who can say at this point? We don't even know if bailing them out was the right move yet.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
Originally posted by: soulcougher73
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The level of ignorance shown by some in this thread reflects the ignorance of the general population.

Ignorant people have the instant "hey, the same people that lost all that money are now leaving. Good riddance!" reaction. That's sheer stupidity of course, because there are many different parts to such a large organization, and within those parts there are some very talented people and some dolts. The vast majority (99%) of employees in these companies have absolutely nothing to do with the reason the companies were in need of TARP money.

Artificially restricting the salaries of some companies within the industry and not others will inevitably lead to massive brain drain. Sure, the brain drain does not happen as quickly as it normally would because the economy sucks, but make no mistake about it, the brain drain is inevitable as long as these companies can not pay their top talent at the same level as other companies.

To make this simpler to understand for those of you that don't get it, imagine citibank as a baseball team. The manager and GM sucked so bad that they ran the team into the ground. The pitching staff sucked, and the team lost 100 games last year. Now a new owner steps in, and in light of the crappy team performance decides to limit salaries for all players. Sure, the team as a whole stunk it up last year, but it might have a couple of really really good players (maybe a stud 3rd baseman) who are now free agents. Other teams are going to know who those one or two good players are, and they will make them a better offer. The one or two gems on the crappy team will leave, and that team will get even crappier. That's what we're seeing right now, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

HEY!! Stop talking about my Kansas City Royals like that :p

LOL
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: spidey07


Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.

When the company is in trouble, they (everyone) should be taking one for the team. My plant was completely proffitable last year (first time in 16 years) but because the rest of automotive sucked ass, I (and the rest of the people here) had to take a 5% paycut, zero raise this year as well as a permanently frozen pension - just like everyone else in the other non-profitting plants. Somehow, banking and investment people are different. They all get rewarded regardless of the company health, or so it seems.

The more I look back, the more I think the goverment should have let them go under.

"Taking one for the team"? You do realize that "taking one for the team" results in a 40% reduction in pay?

You go live your life on 60% of your salary, "take one for the team" and reduce it by another 35%. I'd love to see how you're able to do it.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: spidey07


Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.

When the company is in trouble, they (everyone) should be taking one for the team. My plant was completely proffitable last year (first time in 16 years) but because the rest of automotive sucked ass, I (and the rest of the people here) had to take a 5% paycut, zero raise this year as well as a permanently frozen pension - just like everyone else in the other non-profitting plants. Somehow, banking and investment people are different. They all get rewarded regardless of the company health, or so it seems.

The more I look back, the more I think the goverment should have let them go under.

"Taking one for the team"? You do realize that "taking one for the team" results in a 40% reduction in pay?

You go live your life on 60% of your salary, "take one for the team" and reduce it by another 35%. I'd love to see how you're able to do it.


Considering that my overtime was completely eliminated this year PLUS a 5% pay cut, I can easily say that I've lost over 40% of my year over year salary. I took it up the butt for the team (but will leave as soon as I get a better offer - if one arises).


Every other company structure in the US spreads out the bad times across everyone. The banking industry rewards you whether it's good, bad or ugly and then does it on the taxpayer dime to boot. They should have been allowed to go under, then once the market was flooded with these guys, let's see how much they would be worth.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Aren't some of these people the very same people who put the banks into the position they are in today?

No -- which was the OP's entire point. The ones who actually caused the heavy losses over the last few years are already gone. The ones who are leaving now, the ones most effected by the Governments interference in the salaries, are actually the good who worked in profitable departments all along.

The ignorance in this thread is beyond measure.

This was all very predictable the moment the Feds stepped in to regulate salaries across the board with total disregard for the employees' actual performances.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: spidey07


Because most times bonuses are based on meeting goals that are in your direct sphere of influence so if you or your group do well you get bonus regardless of other areas.

When the company is in trouble, they (everyone) should be taking one for the team. My plant was completely proffitable last year (first time in 16 years) but because the rest of automotive sucked ass, I (and the rest of the people here) had to take a 5% paycut, zero raise this year as well as a permanently frozen pension - just like everyone else in the other non-profitting plants. Somehow, banking and investment people are different. They all get rewarded regardless of the company health, or so it seems.

The more I look back, the more I think the goverment should have let them go under.

"Taking one for the team"? You do realize that "taking one for the team" results in a 40% reduction in pay?

You go live your life on 60% of your salary, "take one for the team" and reduce it by another 35%. I'd love to see how you're able to do it.


Considering that my overtime was completely eliminated this year PLUS a 5% pay cut, I can easily say that I've lost over 40% of my year over year salary. I took it up the butt for the team (but will leave as soon as I get a better offer - if one arises).


Every other company structure in the US spreads out the bad times across everyone. The banking industry rewards you whether it's good, bad or ugly and then does it on the taxpayer dime to boot. They should have been allowed to go under, then once the market was flooded with these guys, let's see how much they would be worth.

lol, you're kidding me, right?

The majority of bankers are salaried. Do you understand that? Without a bonus and considering cost of living, while working the same amount of hours, they are getting paid far less than 60% of their former salary per hour.


 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

The majority of bankers are salaried. Do you understand that? Without a bonus and considering cost of living, while working the same amount of hours, they are getting paid far less than 60% of their former salary per hour.

Then the banks should have been allowed to go under. Taxpayer money for bonuses is a crock of shit.

The automotive suppliers ask for a bailout too...was told to fuck off. What do they do? They cut everyone to survive. Should have been the same for the millionaire and nearly there bankers and the banks they worked at.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,947
126
we dont need "creative" banks sorry. i know I'm over simplifying but creativity should be left to artists, musicians and actors.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

The majority of bankers are salaried. Do you understand that? Without a bonus and considering cost of living, while working the same amount of hours, they are getting paid far less than 60% of their former salary per hour.

Then the banks should have been allowed to go under. Taxpayer money for bonuses is a crock of shit.

The automotive suppliers ask for a bailout too...was told to fuck off. What do they do? They cut everyone to survive. Should have been the same for the millionaire and nearly there bankers and the banks they worked at.

Now we get down to the real good ideas. "Whine, let it all burn!"

Wow, what a stunning and telling statement. You can't even concieve of the damage this would do.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Engineer


Considering that my overtime was completely eliminated this year PLUS a 5% pay cut, I can easily say that I've lost over 40% of my year over year salary. I took it up the butt for the team (but will leave as soon as I get a better offer - if one arises).


Every other company structure in the US spreads out the bad times across everyone. The banking industry rewards you whether it's good, bad or ugly and then does it on the taxpayer dime to boot. They should have been allowed to go under, then once the market was flooded with these guys, let's see how much they would be worth.

That's the whole point of this thread and what was predicted.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
the brain drain is inevitable as long as these companies can not pay their top talent at the same level as other companies.
This.

To make this simpler to understand for those of you that don't get it, imagine citibank as a baseball team. The manager and GM sucked so bad that they ran the team into the ground. The pitching staff sucked, and the team lost 100 games last year. Now a new owner steps in, and in light of the crappy team performance decides to limit salaries for all players. Sure, the team as a whole stunk it up last year, but it might have a couple of really really good players (maybe a stud 3rd baseman) who are now free agents. Other teams are going to know who those one or two good players are, and they will make them a better offer. The one or two gems on the crappy team will leave, and that team will get even crappier. That's what we're seeing right now, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
Fucking brilliant.

/thread
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
You can't even concieve of the damage this would do.
If you are correct that "the brains" of the C and BAC are leaving for greener pastures, then its only a matter of time before the two banks collapse under their own weight taking out the other interconnected banks along with them.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

This.

To make this simpler to understand for those of you that don't get it, imagine citibank as a baseball team. The manager and GM sucked so bad that they ran the team into the ground. The pitching staff sucked, and the team lost 100 games last year. Now a new owner steps in, and in light of the crappy team performance decides to limit salaries for all players. Sure, the team as a whole stunk it up last year, but it might have a couple of really really good players (maybe a stud 3rd baseman) who are now free agents. Other teams are going to know who those one or two good players are, and they will make them a better offer. The one or two gems on the crappy team will leave, and that team will get even crappier. That's what we're seeing right now, and the taxpayers will be left holding the bag.
Fucking Obama.

/thread

Fixed that for you.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Engineer


Considering that my overtime was completely eliminated this year PLUS a 5% pay cut, I can easily say that I've lost over 40% of my year over year salary. I took it up the butt for the team (but will leave as soon as I get a better offer - if one arises).


Every other company structure in the US spreads out the bad times across everyone. The banking industry rewards you whether it's good, bad or ugly and then does it on the taxpayer dime to boot. They should have been allowed to go under, then once the market was flooded with these guys, let's see how much they would be worth.

That's the whole point of this thread and what was predicted.

Then the bad banks should have been allowed to fail and those folks could have moved alone and found those deserving better paying jobs instead of getting billions of bonuses on the back up US taxpayers while the banks were on the US tit.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,330
1,203
126
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: LegendKiller

The majority of bankers are salaried. Do you understand that? Without a bonus and considering cost of living, while working the same amount of hours, they are getting paid far less than 60% of their former salary per hour.

Then the banks should have been allowed to go under. Taxpayer money for bonuses is a crock of shit.

The automotive suppliers ask for a bailout too...was told to fuck off. What do they do? They cut everyone to survive. Should have been the same for the millionaire and nearly there bankers and the banks they worked at.

Now we get down to the real good ideas. "Whine, let it all burn!"

Wow, what a stunning and telling statement. You can't even concieve of the damage this would do.

Because the government allowed the "creative" bankers run amok and invent so much paper wealth that they are now "to big to fail". I'm sure 99% of people could not even fathom the level upon level of legal gambling and ponzy schemes that Wall Street has been able to invent.
 

TheSkinsFan

Golden Member
May 15, 2009
1,141
0
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay...Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.
Conflicting arguments. Pay was only dictated because the banks had received so much money, so these "unguilty" would have been completely out of a job anyway if their employer hadn't had money thrown at it.

If these people are leaving, they're probably going to a better employer.

All true. However, I thought the point of spending billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars was to somehow save these American banks...?

Hence the reason so many of us were opposed to the goverment bailouts in the first place. If the salary regulations imposed on the banks have doomed them to failure anyways -- due to the predictable and inevitable brain drain -- then why the %$# did we have to throw so much of our money at them first?! Just to delay the inevitable?!

Wow. I predicted the future. Fucking swell.