First I would like everyone to go read Nate Silver's explanation of Why AIG Paid the Bonuses. It is insightful, well researched, and explored.
Now here is a question, and I'm sort of playing Devil's Advocate here. These people who were paid large sums of money were at the executive level I believe. But they were also doing what they were told to do, correct? In other words, were they HIRED to do this, or did they DECIDE to do this?
I mean, suppose one works for a company that makes popcorn and is hired to sell the popcorn and does it well. But when the customers try to pop the corn it doesn't pop, so they return it and the company goes belly up. Should the salesperson get paid for the job they did? I mean, they didn't make the popcorn, they were just hired to sell it.
I know it sounds silly, but didn't these people do their jobs? They sold this product that blew up in their faces, but that was their job and what they were hired to do. Were they supposed to turn down the jobs based on personal ethics in an industry that is based on risk?
And to reiterate, $165M is a lot of money to 99% of Americans. But it's only less than .1% of the $170B that AIG is getting from the government.
Posts
