Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Harvey
Right! Uh-huh...
1. How many vacant jobs do you think are out there?
2. Right now, any employers with an available jobs have their pick of good talent. What makes you think they'd want any of these bozos just managed to lose a giga-zillion bucks while putting so many other Wall Streeters are on the street, instead of playing it? :roll:
What you smokin', Rufus?
Harvey,
I've done consulting on the design of compensation packages, you're way off base here.
This type compensation package structure exists for many good reasons. It benefits the company and the best performers and is far superior (for too many reasons to list here) than a package more weighted to straight salary.
It's your assumption that they have a big pool of good talent. Common sense tells us that many firms lost a lot of money = many employees themselves lost a lot of money and are probably not considered 'top talent' any more.
Obviously, not so many employees did so well over the last few years so the pool ain't that big at all.
Your inability to comprehend the desirability and advantages of different compensation package structures for different industries/occupations mirrors that of Congress. That kind of thinking may well cause us taxpayers to lose a lot of money we've invested in these type compamies.
As I've pointed out elsewhere, about 20% of your employees produce about 80%. That 20% will always be able to command good compensation. I'm afraid we're gonna end up with some from the 80% group working for us if the government doesn't get a clue.
Fern
Except that the people who got paid the biggest bonus lost the most money.
Such a pay scale is bad for the companies the employee will ignore short term risk to get a bigger bonus. To claim that 20% of the employee produce 80% of the profit is silly when the companies are bankrupt.
Facebook
Twitter