Originally Posted by Tommycat
meh, actually in his letter, he even mentions that the ones who brought the company down are getting away scott free, while the ones who were actually keeping the company afloat(as much as they could) were getting the shaft(I'm paraphrasing obviously). They delayed getting paid for a year. These bonuses should have been their actual salary. Granted, I still follow the rule of not feeling bad for someone who makes more in interest on his savings, I still can understand why they would deserve the pay. You do a job, you get paid.
That's the problem. They didn't do the job, at least without running it into the ground. Of course, that really goes for their predecessors in most corporations. Regardless, the payment for the executives was the bailout money to their corporation. $1 salaries are more than fair because the bailout money saved them from losing everything if their corporation went bankrupt. How much would they have lost if their stocks held no value? THAT'S the payment, not the salaries + bonuses. By accepting bailout money, they should be counting their graces because taxpayers saved them from bankruptcy. To give themselves huge bonuses is to continue with the bad management that brought their corporation down in the first place.