Matt Shea
RubySoho
Morgan Bell
Cibbuano
David O'Connell
Mountain Fog
$500 000 is not a lot of money to live on
February 8th 2009 21:51
At least, that's the wretched argument put forward by the New York Times, bemoaning the limits set by the Obama administration on salaries collected by executives of banks that have accepted bailout money.
"Five hundred thousand dollars — the amount President Obama wants to set as the top pay for banking executives whose firms accept government bailout money — seems like a lot, and it is a lot. To many people in many places, it is a princely sum to live on. But in the neighborhoods of New York City and its suburban enclaves where successful bankers live, half a million a year can go very fast."
Honestly, I love reading the New York Times, except for this one aspect, how they treat the financial manipulators like the new Dukes and Duchesses. It's a new royalty, with privilege measured, not in the standing of your family, but by the size of your pile of money.
The article points out that it's really tough to have an executive lifestyle on $500 k; the writer does not go as far as saying that we should cut them a break, but the message is implied, at least, that's how I read it.
A commenter on Reddit summed it up nicely for me:
"Notice how the article doesn't point out the most obvious problem with the whole thing:
They fucked up.
If I fucked up at my job as badly as these people fucked up, I wouldn't get my salary capped, I'd get FIRED. F-I-R-E-D. $0 a year!
Talk about ridiculous. Wah wah wah, we need to project an image of opulent success! Guess what? You didn't succeed. You FAILED. Count yourself lucky you're still going to be paid anything at all."
They fucked up.
If I fucked up at my job as badly as these people fucked up, I wouldn't get my salary capped, I'd get FIRED. F-I-R-E-D. $0 a year!
Talk about ridiculous. Wah wah wah, we need to project an image of opulent success! Guess what? You didn't succeed. You FAILED. Count yourself lucky you're still going to be paid anything at all."
Simultaneously, DailyKos points out that it's hard to live on $54 000 for autoworkers in Fort Wayne, which is something that executives often cry against.
Right - it's hard for everyone to live on their salary. That's because we're intrinsically ambitious - or greedy, depending on how you want to look at it. We're built to want more, and that drives civilization.
The difference is that the autoworker, the post man, the butcher, the sales receptionist, the tailor, the gambling man - all of these people, if they make a mistake at work, if they cost their employer time or money, face swift punishment for their failures. They could easily get fired, even for trivial things.
Executives at banks, though, fretfully beg the government for money. Why? Because they played high stakes gambles for years, taking massive profits off securities that had only paper wealth to back them... once that wealth evaporated, so did their profits, and now they've got paper losses. Why should the penalty be any less?
I could argue and rant forever, and I do, in person. Here on the net, though, I'll bring one simple point. I've mentioned that the bankers of Manhattan have become the equivalent of royalty in America, an upper echelon of gentry that plays by different rules to the rest of us.
This happened before, in France, when the people decided that they didn't want to extend these privileges. Then came the sharp edge of the blade and howling mobs crying for blood and unrest, the country thrown into chaos and the royalty disposed. Equality, Liberty and Fraternity.
The last thing I'll leave you with is a tragic video of Peter Schiff, an analyst, in 2006 predicting the housing crash and the deep recession, then getting mocked and laughed at. The arrogance of our politicians and our bankers has brought this on us, deservedly so.
*this image is from thought-criminal.org
| 102 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Teresa Ralton
MRS SMITH
READ THIS
SISTERS IN CRIME
The Melbourne Age published an excellent article by Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein: A Perfect Storm? No, a Failure of Leadership.
(hope this works!) Here is the Washington Post online link: Really Long Link
Comment by The Rusty Can
Everything
Comment by Damo
Everything they do and rob is rationalized as somehow serving the company. So if he spend up big on himself it was because it honors the company. Needless to say he ran the place broke.
Comment by Janet Collins
Acceptable Etiquette
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
But to brighten up the subject, here is Sydney Morning Herald's cartoonist, Alan Moir's take on it.
From Sydney Morning Herald cartoon gallery - appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday 31 January 2009.
If you can't see this clearly go to the following URL and click through to cartoon no. 4.
Really Long Link
Great post, Cibbuano.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Teresa, thanks for the link. Reading it now.
Rusty, it's an unbelievable example of excess and greed.
Damo, ike I wrote, CEOs and evecs really believe that they are the equivalent of free-market royalty.
Janet, thanks for the cartoon. If only it was made out of brick and we could hurl it across the Pacific.
I have no problem with people making a lot of money, being compensated by the company at what they decide as a fair rate. If you pay your taxes, you're doing your part.
But I think we all have a problem with the execs driving these financial institutions to ruin by adopting risky policies, then asking for government money.
I'm sorry, but if the government is covering your losses, you are no longer part of the elite, or worth your salary.