Since it's such a hot topic in the news, I thought it'd be interesting to have a civil discussion about the Bonuses paid to the executives of AIG as it pertains to the huge wads of tax payer money propping up the company. Here's an article I picked out of the google list for no reason other than the guy starts by saying he doesn't normally agree with some other guy, but in this case... etc. http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/03/bonuses.phpPersonally, I think the Government should have stipulated where this money was supposed to go. I believe it's monumentally irresponsible to give carte blanche spending power to the people who so completely messed up the financial market in the first place. Not that the government is better at money management, but I think it's clear what this money was INTENDED for. If the company was solvent enough to afford the exec bonuses out of their own budget, and none of it was tax payer money, I'd have no problem. Furthermore, I don't think any bonuses should be given to the decision makers of tanking companies. I don't know about other industries, but in the Software industry it's pretty much standard that IF there's a bonus structure, it depends on company performance. Update: I've added a very appropriate comic from xkcd http://xkcd.com/558/ |