
A.I.G. to Pay $100 Million in Bonuses After Huge Bailout  - peter123
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html
======
Tangurena
I'm extremely offended by this. If they're healthy enough to pay out bonuses,
then they're far too healthy to be receiving bailouts.

And further, the US Government allegedly owns 80% of the stock in this
"company" yet has 0% of the control. This is an outrageous swindle. Shooting
is too good for these criminals.

------
ShabbyDoo
Many Americans have an oddly collectivist sentiment with regard to employment.
They see being an employee as we might see being part of a family or club --
"We're all in this together." When times are good, we'll all share in the
blessings. And, when times are bad, we'll all tighten our belts and roll up
our sleeves. Variable compensation plans can rationally incent these
behaviors, but even those paid a straight-up salary often feel this way.

I, however, see employment much more contractually. If I'm a life insurance
salesperson for AIG and I meet my quota for the year, I expect the bonus that
was promised to me. And, even if there's no explicit promise of a bonus, I'll
consider selling someone else's insurance if I don't think I'll end up earning
as much with AIG. So, paying out a bonus to me would be a good business
decision, even if the company itself is doing badly. After all, I'm still
exceeding expectations.

Is it those who take the "family" view of employment who are most opposed to
bonuses being paid by troubled companies?

