The Brain Drain

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The basic matter comes down to this. At this point we have invested a significant amount of money into several banks. We can either preserve their economic value to maximize the eventual sale value, or we can let them wallow. If you choose to preserve their economic value then you must invest in them, which means investing in the people, paying them the salary that keeps them in the seats.

That is the fact of the matter. The remainder of the ideas ("let it burn") are not workable solutions.

A fair question, but one which is missing improtant info.

What if we were talking about the tobacco industry and asking, 'the government has invested billions, do we protect that investment or not?'

When you include the costs to society of the industry, the answer might be, 'no, don't throw good moneyafter bad'.

In recent years, the financial industry made 41% of all profit in the economy. In my view, that's oversized; for an 'overhead' industry, it's clearly a huge price, and I don't think the case can be made that it was justified in terms of the activities all doing more good than harm.

So, some downsizing of the finance industry seems not only like a good idea, but an urgent one - its size was really distroting our very political system, arguably.

The thing is, how to cut the right things, make the right reforms. The first things the public might want cut might be the things the industry most wants to preserve, and vice versa.

This is where in theory, a government representing the public interest sets out to 'reform' and play referee to make the rules work for the nation.

A process that's in jeopardy because of the size and influence of the industry.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Harvey
In these jobs, they're not the creative force that includes inventors. engineers, programmers and others who create new, valuable real products from their ideas. They're not artists, writers, actors, directors, musicians and other creative talents who create works of value as entertainment, as well as generating revenue. They're not the creative business people who build companies to market the real work product of the creative minds.

I should hope not. Other than programmers, why the hell would someone hire any of those skillsets to work in a bank?!?

In fact, at the end of the day, they don't CREATE anything. All they are is overpaid number jockeys and data pushers. They're necessary as facilitators to help finance the production and delivery of the real goods and services created by others, but they can't transcend the laws of numbers and economics, because they aren't the arithmetic equivalent of jocks like Kobe Bryant or Lebron James who can transcend the laws of physics as they apply to human bodies, and they don't produce jack shit, in and of themselves.

umm, what does any of that have to do with the globally determined fair market value of their skillset?

In fact, we're in this entire economic calamity because they stuffed their pockets and padded their golden parachutes by trying to beat those economic laws while buying off our legislators and those charged with overseeing their trainwreck... and they FAILED and left us holding the bag. :thumbsdown: :|

who is "they"?!

Here, let me help you out... I'll even make it bold so that you can't miss it this time:

Remember, we're talking about good former employees who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the financial collapse of any banks.

So, come again?

Originally posted by: Harvey
Better yet, if they're all that bright, let's see them create something new and real that's worth their inflated asking price. :roll:

There is no "justification" necessary, as their fair market value is determined by what other -- non-TARP -- banks are willing to pay them; just as it is in any profession. Nothing the U.S. Government does, or anything you say here, will change that fact on a global scale. Thus, unilateral restrictions on the salaries of everyone at the TARP banks can only result in the "brain drain" being discussed here.

Since this was a foregone conclusion the moment such blanket restrictions were implemented, the failure of these banks, and not their salvage, must have been the goal... and you support that fact based on pure anger and hostility toward the entire financial sector.

TLC's Muslim terrorist analogy was perfect. You're a bigot.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Here, let me help you out... I'll even make it bold so that you can't miss it this time:

Remember, we're talking about good former employees who had absolutely NOTHING to do with the financial collapse of any banks.

So, come again?

Here, let me help you out... I won't bother making it bold. I'll just rely on the logic of supply and demand so if you miss it this time, at least you'll know it's your own blindness:

Due to the financial collapse brought on by the wrecklessness of the banking and financial institutions, themselves, there are FAR more bright, educated, talented people in the pool of available potential employees and far fewer companies remaining in the field to support multi-mega-buck salaries, bonuses and golden parachutes.

To put it in simple terms, the supply of qualified potential employees greatly exceeds the demand for able bodies and minds to fill the available, unstaffed cubicles and corner offices.

TLC's Muslim terrorist analogy was perfect. You're a bigot.

Thanks for the irrelevant, gratuitous name calling. :lips: my (_!_)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Actually, many of these people analyze investment potentials and make their companies and clients large amounts of money based on their decisions. Additionally, some of them create new investment vehicles, as well as manage those vehicles, and also make massive amounts of money in the process.

You're also making a huge error by lumping all financial sector employees together as part of the problem. It's similar to claiming that all Muslims are terorrists. Surely you'd scoff at anyone making such a claim and call them numerous forms of ignorant in bolded, capitalized letters. Well you don't appear any less ignorant when you make the very same sort of claim applied to finance employees.

I know there are imaginative people in the financial sector who create fiscal opportunity. That isn't my point. The point is, when the prospective pool of qualified employees is as large as it is under the current economic situation, the only things supporting over-inflated salaries and bonuses is ego and hot air.

NOTHING justifies their over-inflated sense of self worth when thousands of other qualified people are broke, hungry and out of work.

If all of those mega-buck financial brainiacs are really that valuable, let them fight over the jobs that will actually produce more than they cost... BOTH of them... if they're not already filled.

Better yet, if they're all that bright, let's see them create something new and real that's worth their inflated asking price. :roll:

What justifies their worth is a proven track record at earning money for their employers. They are known money-makers vs. those that aren't known or have a poor track record. If companies weren't willing to pay them a million or two for their expertise they wouldn't be making that sort of bling in the first place. The fact is that there are many in the financial sector that make that kind of cash and companies are glad to pay it because they earn a company far more than they are paid.

It seems what's going on with you is the same old, tiresome "fuck the rich" attitude they you've always exhibited in here. We know you have a grudge against them but your grudge doesn't make for sound reasoning, it only makes for little more than sour grapes.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Harvey
To put it in simple terms, the supply of qualified potential employees greatly exceeds the demand for able bodies and minds to fill the available, unstaffed cubicles and corner

If that were the case, then the non-TARP banks would not be snatching up these highly experienced proven money-makers instead, and they wouldn't continue to pay them their globally established fair market value. But, they are. In fact, you would have to debunk the examples given in the OP's article to support your claim, which hasn't happened.

Face it Harvey, there ARE people out there, even in the financial sector, who deserve every penny of the millions they're paid each year. If you weren't so hateful (bigotted) towards the entire industry, you'd have to admit that... but, you won't.

You simply hate wealthy people. We get it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: her209
Weren't they going to go to foreign banks anyways if the bank they worked at failed?

If these people are so talented as their own PR would have us believe then they should just band together and form their own banks and/or investment firms.

Soon they would own the WORLD!!! BUHAHAHAAHAA

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

You simply hate wealthy people. We get it.

If the best you can do is stoop to pathetic name calling, you simply don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. We get it. :laugh:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: her209
Weren't they going to go to foreign banks anyways if the bank they worked at failed?

If these people are so talented as their own PR would have us believe then they should just band together and form their own banks and/or investment firms.

Soon they would own the WORLD!!! BUHAHAHAAHAA

They do it all the time.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: her209
Weren't they going to go to foreign banks anyways if the bank they worked at failed?

If these people are so talented as their own PR would have us believe then they should just band together and form their own banks and/or investment firms.

Soon they would own the WORLD!!! BUHAHAHAAHAA

They do it all the time.

Then why all the whining?? Isn't the motto "Just Do It"??

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: her209
Weren't they going to go to foreign banks anyways if the bank they worked at failed?

If these people are so talented as their own PR would have us believe then they should just band together and form their own banks and/or investment firms.

Soon they would own the WORLD!!! BUHAHAHAAHAA

They do it all the time.

Then why all the whining?? Isn't the motto "Just Do It"??

If you can get the same result at Citi by boosting base why not take a stab at it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Note: Please leave out personal attacks or off-topic posts.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you the one who said that TARP would prove to be a 'boon to the world'?

Anyway the reason to cut 'free market pay' with TARP is exactly because it isn't free market pay. It's govt pay. Without TARP, those banks would have failed, and those top performers would have had to find work elsewhere anyway.

Seriously, I have no problem with letting the free market dictate pay. But when you're a 'top performer' at a financial institution that would have collapsed with govt support, free market pay isn't even unemployment benefits.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Note: Please leave out personal attacks or off-topic posts.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you the one who said that TARP would prove to be a 'boon to the world'?

Anyway the reason to cut 'free market pay' with TARP is exactly because it isn't free market pay. It's govt pay. Without TARP, those banks would have failed, and those top performers would have had to find work elsewhere anyway.

Seriously, I have no problem with letting the free market dictate pay. But when you're a 'top performer' at a financial institution that would have collapsed with govt support, free market pay isn't even unemployment benefits.

Vic,

What part of these folks were making money that don't you understand? This was predicted and you know that. You understand the whys and hows and don't pretend that you don't.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Vic,

What part of these folks were making money that don't you understand? This was predicted and you know that. You understand the whys and hows and don't pretend that you don't.

Probably the part where I'm in banking and I know how much they're losing. Oh, they were making money alright... before the market crashed.

What's next, spidey? Are you going to start defending the compensation for the execs at bailed-out automakers under the guise of free market? Hell, let's just move on from that and vote a pay raise for Congress in the name of free markets. It wouldn't be scarcely any different.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Note: Please leave out personal attacks or off-topic posts.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you the one who said that TARP would prove to be a 'boon to the world'?

Anyway the reason to cut 'free market pay' with TARP is exactly because it isn't free market pay. It's govt pay. Without TARP, those banks would have failed, and those top performers would have had to find work elsewhere anyway.

Seriously, I have no problem with letting the free market dictate pay. But when you're a 'top performer' at a financial institution that would have collapsed with govt support, free market pay isn't even unemployment benefits.

LK sounds like one of those insane free market libertopians who believe pay should be determined on the market. What a fruit.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Note: Please leave out personal attacks or off-topic posts.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but weren't you the one who said that TARP would prove to be a 'boon to the world'?

Anyway the reason to cut 'free market pay' with TARP is exactly because it isn't free market pay. It's govt pay. Without TARP, those banks would have failed, and those top performers would have had to find work elsewhere anyway.

Seriously, I have no problem with letting the free market dictate pay. But when you're a 'top performer' at a financial institution that would have collapsed with govt support, free market pay isn't even unemployment benefits.

I do think that TARP helped stabilize the markets. There was a time when no equity, debt, or securitization could be issued. At this point, while spreads are still high, the TED spread is far lower, A2/P2 spreads are far lower, and most securitization spreads are far lower. Why? Mainly because the market was able to calm down and say "this isn't so bad, the government is making sure it doesn't collapse".

Had TARP, CPFF, TALF, among others, not been put in place, we would surely be in a different place right now.

As far as "free market" pay. As I have said before, "free markets" are not 100% free, nor are they 100% restricted. There is a happy medium. Letting the system fail in the name of "free market" is stupid. However, constricting it completely with respect to pay is also stupid. I explained myself re: compensation before.

These people were making money pre crash, crash, and post crash. It's why people are hiring them now.

I do get a huge laugh that people are so beholden to their ideology that they cannot veer, even the slightest, to make allowances for extraordinary times. It either has to be 100% free, or not. It has to be 100% right or 100% wrong. People who live their lives by such absolutes are very limited in their capabilities of rational thought.

 

[Moonbeam]

LK: I do get a huge laugh that people are so beholden to their ideology that they cannot veer, even the slightest, to make allowances for extraordinary times. It either has to be 100% free, or not. It has to be 100% right or 100% wrong. People who live their lives by such absolutes are very limited in their capabilities of rational thought.

Yet these bailing bankers seem to be 100% motivated by their own gain rather than righting the banks in which they worked and the collapse of which could harm the country, no? The link talked about how little real loyalty they have to their employer, but that extends to no loyalty for much of anything, no? Come on, don't we have a crisis? In what way aren't these people bottom feeders? The public has to bail the banks but the bankers give nothing? Just curious.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
LK: I do get a huge laugh that people are so beholden to their ideology that they cannot veer, even the slightest, to make allowances for extraordinary times. It either has to be 100% free, or not. It has to be 100% right or 100% wrong. People who live their lives by such absolutes are very limited in their capabilities of rational thought.

Yet these bailing bankers seem to be 100% motivated by their own gain rather than righting the banks in which they worked and the collapse of which could harm the country, no? The link talked about how little real loyalty they have to their employer, but that extends to no loyalty for much of anything, no? Come on, don't we have a crisis? In what way aren't these people bottom feeders? The public has to bail the banks but the bankers give nothing? Just curious.

They are motivated by living and being compensated for their performance. Asking somebody to take a 40-60% paycut for a "moral" obligation, to which there is no moral obligation is silly. They didn't cause the problem but are being punished for it.

I do laugh at the notion that the public paid to keep the bankers employed. The public paid to keep the economy from completely collapsing.

And just who is the "public"? I think you forget the tax brackets here and how much the bankers and other people involved pay in taxes.

 

[Moonbeam]

LC: They are motivated by living and being compensated for their performance. Asking somebody to take a 40-60% paycut for a "moral" obligation, to which there is no moral obligation is silly. They didn't cause the problem but are being punished for it.

M: I am not asking for anything but your views on my questions. The people of the country didn't actually directly cause the problem either but they are suffering and many 100%. We are all either interconnected or we are not. We know the wisdom of killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That story exists for a reason. If everything is about me how smart am I to destroy the system that feeds me? How can you say NO moral obligations exist. You are right back to that 100% right or wrong in a crisis thingi you complained about earlier, it seems to me.

Also, when you say they didn't cause the problem I assume, owing to the profit the banks made from bad loans for a long time, the certainly benefited from those prior good times, no, with higher pay, unlike the average tax payer? I skimmed mine and now I'm going to leave?

LK: I do laugh at the notion that the public paid to keep the bankers employed. The public paid to keep the economy from completely collapsing.

M: Certainly, the the effect was the same.

LK: And just who is the "public"? I think you forget the tax brackets here and how much the bankers and other people involved pay in taxes.

M: I didn't forget. Bankers are part of the public too. My question revolves around the fact bailing out weakens the banks they bail from, that they have jobs to leave because of tax payer money instead of having to find new jobs as the unemployed. Again, NO moral obligation. No appreciation? No patriotism?

Maybe banking should should be run like the Post Office and the real money be limited to manufacturing of products that add value to the country like solar energy research. Let the talent chase dreams that benefit all life on the planet, eh?

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
I predicted this would begin to happen the second the USG stepped into the role of dictating free market pay. People who DO perform and DO deserve good compensation, because they perform, are not going to sit around accepting pittance. It just doesn't work like that.

Many said "where else are they going to go" with regards to AIG and TARP banks. Well, now you know. They are going to foreign banks, boutique firms, and private equity, all of whom will pay for performance. Now what did our taxpayer dollars buy? Soon to be empty husks of formerly competitive banks, all because you punished the unguilty.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/2...postversion=2009062311

Note: Please leave out personal attacks or off-topic posts.

Honestly, I don't give a shit if these losers leave banks.

They are lucky they aren't being lined up against a wall, IMO.

 

[gingermeggs]

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."

 

[BoberFett]

It's easy to see what you think the free market is.

Free market that benefits LegendKiller: Good
Free market that doesn't benefit LegendKiller: Bad

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: her209
Weren't they going to go to foreign banks anyways if the bank they worked at failed?

If these people are so talented as their own PR would have us believe then they should just band together and form their own banks and/or investment firms.

Soon they would own the WORLD!!! BUHAHAHAAHAA

They do it all the time.

Then why all the whining?? Isn't the motto "Just Do It"??

If you can get the same result at Citi by boosting base why not take a stab at it?

IF??!!?? If the dog hadn't stopped to take a shit it would have caught the rabbit.

Sorry, but in the world of banking and business I don't think "IF" is considered collateral.

When the bankers find they can give themselves outrageous salaries regardless of how the bank is doing, that will herald the end of the bank.

 

[EagleKeeper]

This thread has been scrubbed a second time for insults and off topic postings.

If such a mess happens again, the poster(s) will be gone for a time frame (depending on their track records). And the thread will be locked.

No one is exempt!!!!


Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

IF??!!?? If the dog hadn't stopped to take a shit it would have caught the rabbit.

Sorry, but in the world of banking and business I don't think "IF" is considered collateral.

When the bankers find they can give themselves outrageous salaries regardless of how the bank is doing, that will herald the end of the bank.

So then why are the successful banks luring the talented people away by paying them what they are worth (ie more than the BS cap put in place by obama)? In every industry you pay for top talent and people that add to the bottom line, banking is no different. In your mind this should herald the end of the bank when in reality it makes the bank succeed. Limiting pay heralds the end of the bank as you can see from the OP - you lose your most talented people to your competitor.

Jealousy is such an evil emotion, don't let it cloud your rationale.

 

[senseamp]

Most talented people went to Wall Street banks and proceeded to lose hundreds of billions of dollars, which they then got back from taxpayers. Dolts stayed at regional banks got paid less, but played it safe and largely avoided this mess. Banking is a job for boring bean counters who stick to basics, not boy geniuses inventing new financial products.