what is the rhyme to easy peasy ____ ______?

"pumpkin pie, motherfucker"

Ha! Good to know I wasn't the only one who went there. Thank you, Trudy.

{{{Joe and Aims}}}

---

And, you know, you're talking about real people whose entire life revolves around the success of the market, I don't think they were all working toward a global financial collapse, or that they're all evil, mendacious monsters looking to ensure the loss of their own jobs.

I sure am glad I didn't say anything like that, then.

Do I think they were greedy and -- as Fred Pete said -- stupid and negligent? Yes. Do I think their overall industry -- as brenda was going to say and Emily said -- incentivized astonishingly negligent, shameful behavior? Yes. And I don't think such behavior warrants bonuses that equal more than I'll make in a lifetime. I realize that their own companies/industry thought/think such behavior warrants such bonuses, but I not so respectfully disagree.

Do I think they're evil mendacious monsters? Seriously? Like I said, I'm glad I didn't say that I thought they were.

Those 2 just left office.

---

But if your business is in such bad shape that the government has to bail you out, your top folks can't conduct business and compensation as usual.

But the bonus pool doesn't just cover "top folks" -- it goes pretty deep and covers a lot of people who aren't millionaires (though generally still doing well). But this is what I was saying about it being a PR problem before -- if the industry is set up so that significant numbers of people can reasonably expect a significant amount of their total compensation to come in the form of a bonus, it looks bad when the business doesn't do well to give the bonuses, where it wouldn't look so bad from the outside if the salary pool had just been increased by most of that amount.

---

where it wouldn't look so bad from the outside if the salary pool had just been increased by most of that amount

Well, I mean, if they said right now "We gave people 42% raises" it would look pretty bad. At the moment. I'm thinking. But I do see your point.

---

So, bon bon, do you think articles like this one [link] are referring to bonuses paid in early 2008, based on 2007 activity?

I think they have to be if they are using tax information for the year 2008. I don't think anyone, even if the amount of their bonus was decided in December 2008 for the 2008 year would actually have the money yet.

And again, the 2007 stock market was flying high.

I'm not saying I agree with how bonuses are paid out, but I'm not sure why bankers that bet on an inflated situation should have any more or less sympathy than homeowners that did.

---

Well, I mean, if they said right now "We gave people 42% raises" it would look pretty bad. At the moment. I'm thinking. But I do see your point.

Yeah, not this year. I mean ever.

---

Man, I so rarely have kids that make me this mad. ARGH. This kid HATES me, is certain he's smarter than me, and won't work with me, joke with me...

It goes with the territory, I know. And god knows this is EXACTLY the kind of student I deserve, having been that kind of student myself. I've just been so lucky so far!

Little schmuck.

---

Tommyrot clearly hates me.

He's working on a list of Swiss cheese links next.

---

I don't have any figures or links to back me up, but I'm betting the number of people employed by lots of low level workers being able to make regular purchases of all sizes is WAAAAAAAAAY more than all of the high paid executives put together.

Argh. Of course it is! I'm not arguing that! If it's an issue of salary caps OR workers getting laid off, of course I'm on the side of salary caps. Which, okay, probably is exactly what you're saying. I apologize -- that was not at all the way I was looking at the argument.

I'm just not at all sure that companies would take the money they're not paying their executives and use it to keep more rank-and-file employees. If that really is the way it's going to work, then that's a different story. It's just not the way I generally think of corporate finance working.

I guess I just have some trouble with the "no pity for people making/dependent on people making more than $x" position empirically.

---

TB, I'm no expert on programs that give cash assistance to working mothers, so I can't comment on what's in place. As a general principle, I'd say some degree of strings -- with an eye toward welfare of the children -- is appropriate. And, if assistance is income-based, the government can certainly insist on proof of income (which may be as simple as sending the appropriate office a copy of a W-2 or tax return).

I'm not saying "no bonuses." There may certainly be people whose performance in 2008 is bonus-worthy. It just doesn't make sense that aggregate bonuses should be among the highest ever in a year when the bottom dropped out.

---