reaction
The reaction over the last weeks to the AIG retention payments is curious to me. For several reasons.
1. Compensation for employees of AIG is necessarily based on market forces, as with any job. Supply of qualified labor, and demand for the same. Meaning if AIG had not offered compensation as they did, someone else would have. Then we'd have outrage against Company XYZ instead.
2. Goals for employees of AIG were necessarily driven by market forces. Their company exists to use money to make more money. The decisions they made and the products they sold were driven by the need to provide return on investment, for funds that were held by or at the very least affected millions of people.(a good many of whom would have been 'outraged' had their 401K's not performed) I don't remember hearing outrage when those funds were successful. Furthermore, had they not provided returns as they did, another manager or company would have.
3. Those receiving retention payments were employees. Unions propose to provide a better life for their members, better job security, and higher wages. It seems curious that they would begrudge the employees of AIG the same. Apparently if you join a Union, there will be some sort of ceiling to your earning potential, since we are so 'outraged' at the employees of AIG.
4. It is almost a certainty that every single person who is currently 'outraged', would not turn down a job offer paying the amounts received by the AIG managers. It would sound like this... "why thank you for that generous job offer, but I can't accept, because I believe I will be over-compensated". I just can't see it happening, and therefore any outrage is just jealousy.
5. If the compensation received by AIG employees is too much, how much is not too much? Who gets to decide this? Can 350 million people agree on this? Where is the line between over-compensation and fair compensation? I know I don't qualify to make this decision that will affect the freedom of others.
Do I agree that AIG did the right thing? I don't know. I wasn't there and I certainly don't believe all the one-sided information presented on radio, television and newspapers. (after all, what could be better for media companies than fueling a good 'outrage' once and a while?) Do I believe the AIG employees are evil?? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Are they more fortunate than others? Possibly. Did they work hard to get where they were? Certainly. I have never had to manage billions of dollars that affect millions of lives, but I know that should I be asked to, I'd want some serious compensation.
As for the use of taxpayer money, who's to say that had those managers not stayed on at AIG, that we'd be on the hook for much bigger losses costing much more than 165 million??
To me the current 'outrage' is simply confirmation that most people believe whatever they are told, and for the most part act like sheep.
1. Compensation for employees of AIG is necessarily based on market forces, as with any job. Supply of qualified labor, and demand for the same. Meaning if AIG had not offered compensation as they did, someone else would have. Then we'd have outrage against Company XYZ instead.
2. Goals for employees of AIG were necessarily driven by market forces. Their company exists to use money to make more money. The decisions they made and the products they sold were driven by the need to provide return on investment, for funds that were held by or at the very least affected millions of people.(a good many of whom would have been 'outraged' had their 401K's not performed) I don't remember hearing outrage when those funds were successful. Furthermore, had they not provided returns as they did, another manager or company would have.
3. Those receiving retention payments were employees. Unions propose to provide a better life for their members, better job security, and higher wages. It seems curious that they would begrudge the employees of AIG the same. Apparently if you join a Union, there will be some sort of ceiling to your earning potential, since we are so 'outraged' at the employees of AIG.
4. It is almost a certainty that every single person who is currently 'outraged', would not turn down a job offer paying the amounts received by the AIG managers. It would sound like this... "why thank you for that generous job offer, but I can't accept, because I believe I will be over-compensated". I just can't see it happening, and therefore any outrage is just jealousy.
5. If the compensation received by AIG employees is too much, how much is not too much? Who gets to decide this? Can 350 million people agree on this? Where is the line between over-compensation and fair compensation? I know I don't qualify to make this decision that will affect the freedom of others.
Do I agree that AIG did the right thing? I don't know. I wasn't there and I certainly don't believe all the one-sided information presented on radio, television and newspapers. (after all, what could be better for media companies than fueling a good 'outrage' once and a while?) Do I believe the AIG employees are evil?? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Are they more fortunate than others? Possibly. Did they work hard to get where they were? Certainly. I have never had to manage billions of dollars that affect millions of lives, but I know that should I be asked to, I'd want some serious compensation.
As for the use of taxpayer money, who's to say that had those managers not stayed on at AIG, that we'd be on the hook for much bigger losses costing much more than 165 million??
To me the current 'outrage' is simply confirmation that most people believe whatever they are told, and for the most part act like sheep.
posted by jamie at 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home