Anyone have the energy to discuss the Goldman sacs bonuses?

[1dilemma]

I heard this as I was running out of the house so I'm not giving super accurate figures, it's over 100,000 pounds on average isn't it (and no doubt to be replicated in many banks), nurses have been capped below inflation for 3 years I believe (admittedly a poor decision by their leaders but....) and over 25,000 Woolies staff are loosing their jobs. In the light of the global financial situation and the gov bailouts it's not really OK is it?
I feel for the poor Woolies staff, what a time to hear such news.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood Kerrymum but her suggestion that anyone who works at GS should jump ou of windows and others' subsequent suggestions that they should be hunted down my dogs would demonstrate hatred, in my book.

I am not displaying contempt, I'm saying that they will be less likely to be claiming benefits and taking more public money. i'm stating a fact so how on earth do you get contempt from that?

Face facts - the economy NEEDS GS and the others. Without them the financial infrastucture of the country would crumble and we'd all be stuffed. So whilst there maybe inequality it is explainable is that it enables GS to keep its staff. The ONLY thing that makes GS what it is is its staff, they are very highly educated and they work their arses off. Big time. GS needs to keep them to keep itself going, if they leave, it will fail and we would ALL feel the pinch of that. We need to think about the bigger picture here.

FWIW before any money haters start to lynch me - no neither me nor my DH work there.

Edam, do they suggest that people on benefits should commit suicide or be torn apart by big cats? I very much doubt it.

I think that most industries give bonuses to senior staff. The utility and rail companies do. I'm pretty sure that oil companies do too.

Retaining good staff is important in all industries, and at VP level if they are not awarded here, they will go elsewhere, there is mobility at that level.

Isn't the 'bail out' a government loan at 12% interest, rather than a gift?

"No, I never said they administered pensions, but pension funds are the largest investors in the stock market. That money that Goldman's plays with is our pensions."

Nope, sorry, that's entirely not true. Edam, if you're going to be angry and bitter at least get your facts straight. If you absolutely MUST blame goldman sachs, (which I don't agree with by the way), then blame them for taking part in a market that was intrinsically flawed and that has therefore caused a negative long term reaction. But, you'll be shocked to know, the company managing your pension fund was playing in the same market and buying and selling the same kind of instruments as GS or any other big bank.

Why did Madoff do so well? because loads and load of investment companies, pension funds and banks thought, "wow, his returns are great. No, I don't understand what he's doing and he's not proving it to me, but he does give me a really really good return so I'll go for it".

Just a selection of comments of the workers at Goldmans (i.e. broadly anyone making money in the financial services sector) from this thread:

"Hunt them down with dogs"
"They're all arseholes"
"Give them 10 and hunt them down with tigers"
"What a bunch of wank stains"

I'm yet to see anyone suggesting anything like this about people on benefits and if they did, they'd be very rightly vilified.

What I find almost as wearing as the outright offensive comments is people dressing up their dislike of people getting these bonuses in spurious but allegedly intelligent arguments to the same end:

• They were bailed out by the US government - no, they weren't

• They play with our money - no, they don't, fund management companies do

• They're paid disproportionately - to what? a runner on £8k per year, a nurse on £30k per year, an engineer on £45k per year, an IT consultant on £150k per year, a media executive on £250k per year or a partner in a lawy firm on £500k per year? Everyone automatically references nurses or police as a cheap shot, but why not reference other sectors?

• They're all on £100k bonuses - no, they're not. The majority are on bonuses below that, a minority are on very high bonuses which disproportionately weights the average.

Compensation pool for the year is down 46% on last year with many expected to be down over 70% (source: FT) - that's a massive pay cut we're talking about.

• They made losses and still they're paying bonuses - no, they didn't, they made a loss in the most recent quarter but made a $2.3 billion profit in the last year (and the loss they made was the result of write-downs rather than cash losses).

Just as a note here, I don't work in the financial services sector and I actually don't think the money paid (in this sector or many other sectors) is justified but I'm sick of seeing here and elsewhere the same stupid and offensive arguments trotted out against it.

there is a definite hatred towards those with money that far outweighs that of people on benefits. It's a kind of grudging jealousy that has a very nasty tone to it.

People often have issue with those on benefits because they are paying for them. And while some people on benefits have no other choice, a lot do, so it's not quite as simple as people on benefits not being able to help it - a vast number of them choose to live that way.

But the attitude towards people who have money (whatever that mens) is one of "well you have money so obviously you have no worries in your life," as if money can fix everything. If there were talk of benefit claimants throwing themselves out of windows or being hunted down there would be outcry, but it's ok to say that about someone who earns a good living? whose taxes from that good living go towards paying for those who are living on benefits (and the number of people who avoid paying taxes are few and far between, and generally are up there among those with the kind of money we can never imagine) none of the people posting on this site are in a position to be avoiding taxes.

Also, and I know this is very simplified but these people who earn these huge bonuses spend these hugh bonuses which creates employment. It's how the economy goes round. We need people to earn large amounts of money.

Darn it, EVERYONE is being more eloquent than me at the moment.

Cestlavie has it right. And the aggressive and unpleasant comments combined with a complete lack of knowledge are incredibly frustrating. And frankly, just demonstrate why most people don't (and can't) work at a bank.

"And the aggressive and unpleasant comments combined with a complete lack of knowledge are incredibly frustrating. And frankly, just demonstrate why most people don't (and can't) work at a bank." LOL DTHWB - I think that is the absolute pinnacle of eloquence that this thread needed. Well said!

it is jealousy, pure and simple.

The vast majority of people wouldn't choose to live on the breadline.

Whereas I don't know a single person who would turn down a 100k bonus.

"there is a definite hatred towards those with money that far outweighs that of people on benefits"

I'm not sure it outweighs it but is is seen as being perfectly acceptable whereas a huge amount of people jump on anyone commenting unfavourable about people on benefits or "chavs" and "pikeys".

In fact, I commented on it before and was told that they should be able to take a bit of ridicule/whatever better than someone on a low income because they have money

Ahh because money buys you a sense of humour! Maria Carey must be loaded, so how come she is such a PITA then?

Allegedly.

I'm not angry and bitter, I just think it's incredibly arrogant for Goldmans or any other firm in that industry to carry on with the same old extravagance.

And I think it's entirely reasonable to criticise that industry -they have brought the world economy to its knees, FFS, throwing millions of innocent people out of work. Maybe if there had been a little more criticism over the past decade and a little less greed much of this could have been avoided.

cestlavie I would argue that they were bailed out as the treasury secretary Henry Paulson ( an ex G S employee who has made millions fron Goldman Sachs...talk about vested interest)allowed the legislation to be rushed through allowing and indeed facilitating the Warren Buffet bailout. I don't necessarily think that was a bad thing but I do think that there were special arrangements made for them that they should acknowledge gratefully and with humility....they have not so far.

a £100,000 "bonus" is absolutely absurd. No human could physically do enough work to justify that much money a year let alone as a bonus. Unbelievable. I'm sure the definition of bonus is an extra to reward good work rather than something to be expected. Although I guess if Goldman haven't been bailed out then they can pay their staff what they want!

Edam, it's not extravagance, it's self preservation, which - as explained several times below, is a necessity to help stop things spiraling downward even further. Wannabe's post of 13:10:00 explains very clearly what positive effect the bonus scheme has on our economy.

Aaah, but Edam, going back to your lack of knowledge, an average bonus of £100,000 is not in fact extravagant. To you it might seem like it, but in the world of banking, not so much.

No one said you can't criticise. People did however suggest that you base your criticisms on facts, not on vague ideas of what you think might be facts but don't really know anything about.

As for the comment "most people don't and can't work for a bank"!!!Pmsl, so many banks and bankers have shown themselves to be have incredibly poor judgement and to be motivated by greed to the exclusion of any type of integrity. The recent pyramid £50 billion fraud is yet another example of this.

Well then bamboo, why don't you come over here and do it better. I'm sure by your theory, if you'd been doing it, the world would not be in this state right now.

DTHWBWhy are we not allowed to criticise and comment? It is hardly personal fgs. There is the GMC for doctors and other regulatory bodies for all industries, the banking regulatory body have now shown themselves to be sorely lacking in their remit and expertise. We need much tougher legislation around bonuses etc imo.

Bamboostalks: where exactly do you find the information that the US government allowed and facilitated the Berkshire Hathaway investment? It was a privately placed preference share issue by GS to Berkshire Hathaway which didn't need any approval or facilitation by the SEC or Fed. I'd also add that the terms of the preference shares (and the warrants) are regarded as being punitive and very favourable to Buffett.

Edam: it is entirely reasonable to criticise the industry - my points were that (a) most 'critiques' are openly or thinly veiled attacks on those perceived to be too rich (b) plucking a £100k average bonus for a single institution at a single moment in time is exactly one of those critiques. If you want to criticise it, start looking at the regulatory structures, liquidity structures, investment structures and, if you want to bang on about bonuses, how they're structured and for which parts of which businesses.

Lucylou: a £100,000 'bonus' may be absurd. What is your reference point though. Is it absurd that an IT consultant can earn £150,000? Is it absurd that a partner in a law firm can earn over £1 million?

Frankly, I agree on legislation and I agree on the fact that regulators need to do more. But... this idea that all bankers are morons wondering around screwing up the rest of us, while making huge amounts of money to do so and that really, anyone could do the job better... that really pisses me off.

The truth is that most people really can't work for a bank. So you can laugh at that comment all you like, but it's true. Doesn't mean that the ones who do are perfect, but doesn't change the fact that most can't.

I couldn't be a doctor. Some doctors are good, some are bad. But even the bad ones are better than I'll ever be because that kind of thinking is not how my brain works. And when things do go wrong, I don't suggest that all doctors get shot.

It's really only the top guys who get the huge bonuses.

I worked in the city for years as a low/medium level drone and got rubbish/no bonuses while the top bods bought boats, houses in france and ferraris.

Sorry - but they really can't say 'but we work hard... we deserve it'. Some do, but some just don't (although the very long boozy lunches and 'client meetings' are becoming rarer these days but the 'old boys' network seems to be alive and well) and they aren't exacly saving lives or finding a cure for cancer are they?