OMG! We are in a flagship Honda sedan!
I'm not even sure the amounts are abhorrent. That level of finance is akin to professional sports. You have to pay to win (consistently, except football with its parity where the superstar QB offsets a lot of other things). Do we complain when an actor gets millions to take a part in a film.
Not everyone can do what these people do and I would think it's the same in sports or movies. The star gets big $$$, doesn't make the playoffs or the Oscars but they still collect.
Where's the outrage?
Only in Baltimore. We're still smarting over Albert Belle.
For the most part I agree with you. But when I was a member of the corporate world and got a big, fat, bonus of cash and stock options, and then "retention" incentives, it was tied to performance. My performance against my specific goals, my division's performance against its goals for the corporation and then the corporation's performance measured against its goals. Complicated formula that basically said if I was a superstar and the corporation shit the bed, I got some shit strained through the sheets for a bonus. Or, if I shit the bed and corporation did well, I got the same strained shit. We all had to do well to get a juicy bonus. And if we all did better than planned, we got real juicy bonuses. But if the company went to Congress to beg for money to stay alive, I cannot imagine getting even a scent of shit as bonus.
So, I don't see how there is justification for bonuses here. And, I am not against paying for performance. I just don't see the leadership of this and the other financial companies taking bail out money as being particularly talented. They invented the tools that ruined their companies. How is that a demonstration of talent that needs to be retained and rewarded?
All of these corporations got caught up in a greed cycle. All of them knew they were adding risk to their company's "portfolio" of investments. All of them did it to raise their stock values quickly - because that is how their bonuses were increased in value the most. There is a fundamental problem when the officers of a company make decisions to synthetically inflate the value of the stock options they have to make their personal fortunes worth more instead of earning fees by adding value to some one who pays for the added value. It is a sanctioned Ponzi scheme. And the people getting the short end of the stick are the regular investors. The ones who pay the trading price of the stocks.
So, in this set of circumstances, I disagree with the analogy but only because there is no evidence the guys getting the big bucks are actually the superstars who are worth it.