Bullshit. It's completely relevant to your ridiculous argument, in which anything which you can call "a skill" is assumed to be relevant to performance.
I've been very specific about the skills for which these bankers are being paid. There are essentially three: crisis management, corporate communications, and client outreach.
"Plan"? I'm simply questioning your claim that obscene and irrational compensation schemes necessarily attract the best personnel. You have thus far provided zero evidence for it.
It's a question of demand. The company that offers millions is going to attract labor from the company that pays in tens of thousands.
If somebody offered you millions for the work you currently did, and leaving your current place of work didn't also require that you uproot your family, you'd be a fool to hold out on principle.
Very nice. I like the way you quietly changed the goal from "effective managers who run the bank responsibly and competently" to "top movers and shakers in the field", as if this is some kind of celebrity schmoozing contest. But of course, that's precisely what it is, isn't it? And you don't seem to think that's a problem.
All companies seek top talent. Some can afford only mid-range talent. Some can afford none at all. Those that can pay, do.
I'm not implying it. I'm saying it, and referencing the OP which shows that this is precisely the case. Their "performance pay" is in no way tied to performance.
No, you're saying it, and referencing an article that talks about specific bad decisions at major financial institutions. Where do you keep your money, Mike? A mattress? No. You keep it in a bank. And either that bank is reasonably sound, or you're being irresponsible with your family's future. Which is it?
My argument is that "performance pay," isn't. These people are paid according to what they are
expected to do. I've agreed from the outset that those who have proven themselves ineffective ought to be fired.
You just quoted the whole post without even attempting to say which part of it backs up your claim. Nowhere do I say I envy them and wish to join their ranks, you lying little asshole. Back up your claim right now.
You just claimed that you'd be able to get the same results, given the same responsibilities. That's a bald-faced lie, but speaks clearly to the source of your anger: that somebody is doing a job you think you could do with your eyes closed, and getting handsomely rewarded in the process. You then went on to insist that all bankers do no work, but instead somehow burn up money. Finally, you've complained that nobody can legitimate question whether you could do the same work as an "effective" banker because none of the bankers mentioned in the article did good work. No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Now... does going to an expensive and prestigious institution affect the people you know? Is being able to afford attendance at such an institution a "skill"?
This is only further proof that you've got not the slightest gasp of what you're talking about. "Knowing" somebody in the business world isn't the same thing as having something in common with them. These people don't fill Rolodexes or address books based on the fact that they all went to Harvard -- they didn't all go to Harvard. Going to an expensive and prestigious institution may affect the people you know. So may living in an urban area. So may chance.
University presidents are not administrators as much as fund-raisers. Their job is to ensure that the university endowment rises. Bankers are hired in part based on a judgment of how many new investors they might be able to inspire.
What happened to the importance of being able to schmooze and know the right people, and how those are just as valid "skills" as the ability to manage risk and prevent financial catastrophes? Ooops!
MSNBC ran an article on this just the other afternoon. Regardless of "should" or "would" or "could" or "ideal," people earn jobs with a resume long on practical experience and educational merit and promotions based on their personality type.
I am not suggesting that it is reasonable to hire somebody based only on confidence in how they will handle the media, or whether they might be able to dial the "right" numbers into an iPhone. However, it is a consideration that takes place in our world. It's reality - something people on this board often have trouble recognizing. It explains why a certain kind of executive is highly sought after.
Weasel Kast actually gave the game away but didn't realize it. When asked to describe what makes an effective bank executive, he immediately went straight to the same thing we've been saying: that such a person should "make ends meet".
You've repeatedly insisted that you could be a successful banker - based on a comparison with those who only lost money. That's not only dishonest, it's farcical.
