Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Bank of America to use bailout money to increase bankster's salaries by 70%

Looks like that meeting with Obama was very productive!

Bank of America May Raise Investment Banker Salaries
Bank of America Corp. plans to increase some investment bankers’ salaries by as much as 70 percent following the takeover earlier this year of Merrill Lynch & Co., people familiar with the proposal said.

Bank of America, which has received $45 billion of taxpayers’ money, may raise the annual base pay for some managing directors to about $300,000 from $180,000, said the people, who declined to be identified because the final numbers are still under discussion. Salaries for less-senior directors would climb to about $250,000 from $150,000, and vice presidents would get $200,000, up from about $125,000, the people said.

“The concepts we are considering would not increase total compensation,” [oh, good] Brian Moynihan, Bank of America’s president of investment banking and wealth management, wrote in a memo to employees today, obtained by Bloomberg News. “Rather, we believe it is responsible, and consistent with the emerging public consensus, that a greater percentage of overall compensation come from fixed base salary.”

Bonuses will become a “smaller” portion of total compensation, Moynihan wrote in the memo.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You're not getting it. Here's the "emerging public consensus":

What we want is for banksters to be paid less money.

Paid.

Less.

Money.

PAID LESS MONEY.

We don't want to decrease the bonuses, and then make up for it on the backside by increasing salaries (and, doubtless, other perks that we don't know about, like company hookers and blow).

I'd say... Let me generous. $75K? See, the object of the exercise should be to force bankster to find productive work -- say, as plumbers or electricians or chefs or taxi drivers -- instead of being paid absurd sums of money so that they can destroy people's 401(k)s and loot the economy. As Krugman says: They do more harm than good. For this, we pay them? Forcing them to seek gainful employment can be most readily achieved, banksters being what they are, by paying them less money.

Paying.

Them.

Less.

Money.

PAYING THEM LESS MONEY.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

They take great risk and thus should be rewarded great rewards! What you've written above is not the "change they've been waiting for". Remember, they are the ones we've all been waiting for, not us.

ElizabethF's picture
Submitted by ElizabethF on

a contract for 'mere' citizens.

What do we get other than asked to sacrifice? Will the banksters support:

+ single payer health care
+ increase wages of bank hourly workers
+ agree to allow union participation
+ restructure loan applications
+ restructure bank fees for public i.e credit card, ATM, cc interest rates

These are just a few demands that we ask in exchange for them rewarding themselves with our money.

Ian Welsh's picture
Submitted by Ian Welsh on

Why are you under the impression that what the public wants is any way relevant to what happens?

Submitted by lambert on

Pitchforks, baby!

(And nice to see you dropping by, Ian. Nice to know somebody reads us ;-)

Realist's picture
Submitted by Realist on

We'll give them the billion-dollar payoffs in BLUE bags this time instead of green ones! See? If that's not change you can believe in, I don't know what is.

Huh? What do you mean, that's not good enough? Sheesh. There's just no pleasing you people, is there? What a bunch of whiners. No ponies for you guys!

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

It would have been nice to vote on if we wanted our tax dollars to go to these banks and car companies i would have let them go under. You don't see any small business looking at the government for a hand out when they aren't doing well. I took my money from bank of america and went to HSBC so i could write all the business checks i wanted without the fees and complications BoA had.