Slashdot Mirror
Are Bankers Paid Too Much? Are Technology CEOs?
DavidHumus writes with this excerpt from a New York Times article: "Big paydays on Wall Street often come under laserlike scrutiny, while Silicon Valley gets a pass on its own compensation excesses. Why the double standard? The typical director at a Standard & Poor's 500 company was paid $251,000 in 2012, according to Bloomberg News. Mr. Schmidt [Google's CEO] is above that range by over $100 million. ...The latest was the criticism of Jamie Dimon's pay for 2013, given the many regulatory travails of his bank, JPMorgan Chase. The bank's board awarded Mr. Dimon $20 million in pay for 2013, $18.5 million of which was in restricted stock that vests over three years. ...For one, the outsize pay for Mr. Schmidt doesn't square with Google's performance. Putting aside the fact that he is not even the chief executive, Google had net income of $12.9 billion last year. JPMorgan was higher at $17.9 billion...."
DavidHumus notes "Maybe the bigger question is why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from company performance?"
The Banker? Because without him, those technology CEO's wouldn't have any money to make things and contribute to society.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Kill FDIC.
FDIC ensures that normal people do not have to pay attention to where they are putting their money. Safety of your money is not an issue, therefore does not come into the decision making process. When people do not care about the safety of their money they make decisions based on toasters and rates only. This encourages the banks to do what ever they need to to offer more free stuff. At the cost of safety. FDIC is what makes customers and subsequently the banks behave stupidly.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?