Forums | MacLife

Tallgeese wrote:

AIG life insurance workers caused this mess?

I'm sorry, are we not bailing out AIG? AIG needs $85 billion of our tax dollars, but can afford a $440,000 luxury getaway for employees?

AIG is AIG. If they need help, they need to cut back on frivolous spending.

Farmerkev wrote:

mentholiptus wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Well, ok.
The most common is medical bills followed closely by divorce.
The medical bills would be "beyond your control", I suppose divorce might be considered that as well but that's more iffy.
It sounds like you still are employed so that isn't the cause unless you're on commission and sales are gone.
What else could be beyond your control I'm not sure.

First off, it's pretty low of you to call someone out on their personal circumstances in a public forum simply because he made a point against someone who didn't think before they made a comment. Why exactly are you interested anyway? I'm interested to know. Are you suggesting I'm lying to win a lame fight in a computer forum?

You came in here on a rant then add in the bit about circumstances beyond your control causing you to lose your home soon.
I just showed interest in what you're talking about. It's a topic (bankruptcies) that's been here before.
If you don't want people here to respond with questions about your life don't come in here and bring it up.

The topic isn't my personal bankruptcy, it's about AIG pampering a few employees to the tune of $440,000 right after taking $85 BILLION of taxpayers money. When "radarman" tried to tell me I was wrong, I defended my statement.

I have a different perspective in all of this. Are you saying, unless I'm willing to disclose all personal information related to my circumstance, that I can't post here to make a valid point?

That's pretty weak.

Last edited by mentholiptus (2008-10-09 6:39 am)

Farmerkev wrote:

mentholiptus wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

You came in here on a rant then add in the bit about circumstances beyond your control causing you to lose your home soon.
I just showed interest in what you're talking about. It's a topic (bankruptcies) that's been here before.
If you don't want people here to respond with questions about your life don't come in here and bring it up.

The topic isn't my personal bankruptcy, it's about AIG pampering a few employees to the tune of $440,000 right after taking $85 BILLION of taxpayers money. When "radarman" tried to tell me I was wrong, I defended my statement.

I have a different perspective in all of this. Are you saying, unless I'm willing to disclose all personal information related to my circumstance, that I can't post here to make a valid point?

That's pretty weak.

No, I quite clearly said don't bring up things you don't want others to be interested in and ask about.
Now you're pissed off someone cared.

Hahaha...not pissed. I had originally intended on telling you. I had it typed up, and at the last minute I copied and pasted it into a pages doc in case I decided to post it later. I decided against it because I got the feeling your intent was to "call me out", rather than showing a genuine concern for my situation.

Maybe I'm wrong...but that's the impression I'm getting. Apologies if I'm incorrect. I wouldn't have even brought it up if radarman hadn't been so quick to spin my correct statement as incorrect. I didn't share my situation for the sake of drama, it was just enough to help illustrate my point.

Point is...in a time of economic crisis, when in order to keep our system from collapsing, we need to bail out a company to the tune of $85 billion, they need to sacrifice EVERY unnecessary expense. There is no excuse. Anyone can rationalize this however they want, but it's wrong.

If a company tanks, as did AIG, hasn't the wherewithall to continue operations and has to have cash to prevent itself from closing its doors, then ANY non-essential expenditures are usuallly stopped. No travel, no bonuses, no pay raises, no new hires, and probably some right-sizing (layoffs for any of those not privy to corporate speak).

For them to spend $440K, during this is bound to be called into question. Of course clear, thoughtful, and considered actions by the senior staff is bound to be a bit scarce during times like this. They are panicked and probably wondering how to get their bonuses, and keep their overinflated compensation packages, while the other employees are told that they will be tightening their belts.

I know that's a rather negative view of senior corporate management, however, it's a view that has been borne out by recent and not so recent observation.

If you don't want to be called a greedy smurf, you shouldn't act like one.

radarman, I think you said it well earlier. This division of AIG is profitable. If the bailout isn't going to be just pissing away money, then we need these companies to be profitable. If we want these companies to be profitable we shouldn't discourage the profit-making methods of business out of some petty "MAKE THE BASTARDS SUFFER" approach.

GOOD GAWD FOLKS

What exactly qualifies as a 'smoking gun' these days?

I can't believe it is even being 'debated' (rationalized, inmho) here.

If ever there was an open/shut case for 'abuse' of all sorts, this qualifies. Even if on a 'make an example' basis.

OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR A HALF MILLION DOLLAR$  FLING!

Last edited by daemon (2008-10-09 9:51 am)

Huh. Show me that balance sheet...oh, yes....profit by Enron!

Meanwhile CEO Liddy sent Paulson this ditty:

This sort of  event has been standard practice in our industry for many years. Let me assure you that we are reevaluating the costs of all aspects of our operations in light of the new circumstances in which we are all operating.

BUT IS INEXCUSABLE THIS YEAR!

Last edited by daemon (2008-10-09 10:33 am)

trickle UP continues apace.

mentholiptus wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

radarman, I think you said it well earlier. This division of AIG is profitable. If the bailout isn't going to be just pissing away money, then we need these companies to be profitable. If we want these companies to be profitable we shouldn't discourage the profit-making methods of business out of some petty "MAKE THE BASTARDS SUFFER" approach.

No spa getaway due to AIG nearly going under = suffering?

How about being homeless?

Ok, lets say we do it your way. Lets take all those executives from profitable divisions and really 'make 'em suffer' Take all their performance bonuses away, cap their salaries, etc.

Now, when they all pack up and leave; who is going to run said business, and how profitable do you think it will be? A business that could have been sold for a few billion might end up in bankruptcy instead, and the taxpayer gets squat.

So long as they are paying out actual performance bonuses, I'm cool with it. If the bonuses start to look shifty, or truly over the top, then I might get bothered by it. However, I would far rather see AIG's profitable divisions STAY profitable. Otherwise, they won't be able to repay the loans.

This is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

radarman wrote:

Ok, lets say we do it your way. Lets take all those executives from profitable divisions and really 'make 'em suffer' Take all their performance bonuses away, cap their salaries, etc.

Now, when they all pack up and leave; who is going to run said business, and how profitable do you think it will be? A business that could have been sold for a few billion might end up in bankruptcy instead, and the taxpayer gets squat.

So long as they are paying out actual performance bonuses, I'm cool with it. If the bonuses start to look shifty, or truly over the top, then I might get bothered by it. However, I would far rather see AIG's profitable divisions STAY profitable. Otherwise, they won't be able to repay the loans.

This is a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Well we already know that these people can only make profits in a very favorable environment, so they are already known to not be the best choice for adverse times. They can only make it in good times. So what's the downside again?

Mustapha Mond wrote:

If they're so concerned about keeping the people in that division, they should do what every business does in rocky situations, which is to offer them a bonus of some sort that gets paid after they've stuck with the company a few years.

My dad worked at a company for almost 30 years when they were bought out by a larger business. Buyouts are shaky affairs, and it was essential to the buyer to not lose my dad and all the other big shots that made the investment worthwhile. So they offered him a nice bonus on the condition that he'd stay at least two years. The two years are almost up. He'll get the bonus, and they might even offer him another one after that.

This spa idea is dumb from every angle. No wonder AIG needs to be bailed out.

From what I understand, this practice is 'de rigeur'. We are seeing glimpses into lifestyles that are unbelievable, but to these people, are equivalent to going out for a burger. It is an entirely different world. Most of us probably won't eat at a 5-star restaurant, or stay in a 5-star hotel. (There are quite a few establishments that don't even bother with the Zagat survey, they are so exclusive).

It's hard for the rank and file to understand that. We eat at IHOP or Dennys, and sleep at Holiday Inn or such. We drive our own cars, and sit in coach on the airplane. We can't fathom dropping the price of a luxury home on a getaway. I had a small amount of culture shock when I started working for my new employer, and had to travel on business. I'm using to staying in places that cost about $80/night, and you can park in front of your room. When I travel on business, the per-diem is about $200 (depending on the season), and I'm generally booked in hotels that charge just under the per-diem rate.

Likewise for meals and car. I eat cheap, so I generally MAKE money on these trips. Likewise for the car. I don't need a luxury car, so I get a mid-size sedan. However, a lot of people who travel on business max out. I've seen more than a few limos pull up to the hotel when I'm there on travel - which compared to the Ford Taurus I normally end up with, I feel pretty frugal.

The trouble is, these guys are used to the fat life; and what they can continue to enjoy at other firms. If their current firm wants to keep them, they have to pony up.

$127 billion?! WORSE OFF HOW?