Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dear A.I.G., I Quit

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#41

Post by Rod »

zurla wrote: post #36
bcostlow wrote: post #6

Sorry Jake, but I don't feel sorry for you. Well, maybe a little, if your claims about being tarred unfairly with the CDS debacle are true. But stop whining. All over the USA, people who work hard, who get great reviews from bosses, customers and peers, who were promised bonuses and profit sharing, are seeing instead slashed pay and benefits. That is, if they are lucky, and not getting RIFed. Your company is in the c…

The company should have gone bankrupt (and certainly would have, without US government intervention), in which case none of these people would have seen any bonuses at all. he should be grateful for the $1 :-)

Do you realize what the consequences of letting AIG go bust could be? Do you realize that bailing out crippled financial institutions is entirely different from bailing out Motown's idiot car companies? Do you realize that AIG has various divisions and only one of them was trading the toxic financial products that destroyed the company?

Your comment sounds like demagogy.

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#42

Post by chris11 »

smidwap wrote: post #35

One point: Jake is clearly trying to portray himself as the self-made, hard-working, humble American. In my opinion, he would've been better off not publishing this article in the NY Times. From my point of view, it seems he is searching for the spotlight by providing his letter of resignation to the Times. A good read for sure, but I am forced to consider this when I dig deep down in my stomach to find pity for him.

He probably wrote this letter in response to all the death threats and irate callers AIG FP is getting. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03...

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#43

Post by comatose_kid »

zurla wrote: post #36
bcostlow wrote: post #6

Sorry Jake, but I don't feel sorry for you. Well, maybe a little, if your claims about being tarred unfairly with the CDS debacle are true. But stop whining. All over the USA, people who work hard, who get great reviews from bosses, customers and peers, who were promised bonuses and profit sharing, are seeing instead slashed pay and benefits. That is, if they are lucky, and not getting RIFed. Your company is in the c…

The company should have gone bankrupt (and certainly would have, without US government intervention), in which case none of these people would have seen any bonuses at all. he should be grateful for the $1 :-)

So it's his fault the government intervened, then? Imagine for a moment that logic crept into this train-wreck of a thread:

All I see is some guy who took no salary for a year on the promise that he'd get a bonus at the end

The situation became politicized, so his bonus was rescinded. For all those people accusing him of whining, I hope you never complain about politics at your workplace.

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#44

Post by jibiki »

ankhmoop wrote: post #40
endtime wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think comatose_kid ever said they shouldn't be. I think he just implied that not all home buyers are complicit.

If the e-mail author earned an income remotely commensurate with individual value produced rather than taking gross advantage of market inefficiencies while attempting to sidle all culpability when the market (somewhat) corrected, the implication's point would be valid.

To commiserate is to share misery, the word you are looking for is commensurate.

Your comment seems somewhat tangential to the argument. Are you saying that the financial crisis was in no way caused by consumer attitudes towards real estate?

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#45

Post by ankhmoop »

comatose_kid wrote: post #39
ankhmoop wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't irresponsible home buyers be considered complicit?

So should we promise irresponsible homeowners a lump sum for a years' worth of their work and then at the end of the year not pay them?

Completing your analogy, I assume the entity responsible for hiring the homeowners has failed due to their own market failure, and government intervention has occurred solely (supposedly) for the purpose of preventing collapse of the world's financial markets?

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#46

Post by plinkplonk »

Rod wrote: post #41
zurla wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company should have gone bankrupt (and certainly would have, without US government intervention), in which case none of these people would have seen any bonuses at all. he should be grateful for the $1 :-)

Do you realize what the consequences of letting AIG go bust could be? Do you realize that bailing out crippled financial institutions is entirely different from bailing out Motown's idiot car companies? Do you realize that AIG has various divisions and only one of them was trading the toxic financial products that destroyed the company? Your comment sounds like demagogy.

"Do you realize that AIG has various divisions and only one of them was trading the toxic financial products that destroyed the company?"

Most companies that go bankrupt do have some divisions that performed well and didn't "destroy the company". Weak argument.

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#47

Post by comatose_kid »

ankhmoop wrote: post #40
endtime wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think comatose_kid ever said they shouldn't be. I think he just implied that not all home buyers are complicit.

If the e-mail author earned an income remotely commensurate with individual value produced rather than taking gross advantage of market inefficiencies while attempting to sidle all culpability when the market (somewhat) corrected, the implication's point would be valid.

I have a hard time understanding why on a board that purports to attract entrepreneurs, we have so many people on this thread who are bashing the guy because he made more money than you might judge reasonable.

(ps - I think you mean commensurate?)

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#49

Post by comatose_kid »

ankhmoop wrote: post #45
comatose_kid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So should we promise irresponsible homeowners a lump sum for a years' worth of their work and then at the end of the year not pay them?

Completing your analogy, I assume the entity responsible for hiring the homeowners has failed due to their own market failure, and government intervention has occurred solely (supposedly) for the purpose of preventing collapse of the world's financial markets?

My exact point is - why would it matter? A contract is a contract. AIG isn't in bankruptcy, so shouldn't they honor commitments to their employees? Of course they can change compensation agreements going forward, but changing the rules for work that has been done is not right.

Re: Dear A.I.G., I Quit

#50

Post by plinkplonk »

comatose_kid wrote: post #47
ankhmoop wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the e-mail author earned an income remotely commensurate with individual value produced rather than taking gross advantage of market inefficiencies while attempting to sidle all culpability when the market (somewhat) corrected, the implication's point would be valid.

I have a hard time understanding why on a board that purports to attract entrepreneurs, we have so many people on this thread who are bashing the guy because he made more money than you might judge reasonable. (ps - I think you mean commensurate?)

"we have so many people on this thread who are bashing the guy because he made more money than you might judge reasonable."

attributing (bad) motives to others does not help make a strong argument, and you are probably wrong anyway. No one here has said they were "bashing" anyone because he made a tonne of money. When taxpayer dollars are put into a company that crashed and burned , there is a valid argument that they have some say on how their money is(or is not) spent. You think if a professional investor (say Warren Buffet) put his money into AIG, he would have no strings attached? (There are valid counter arguments to all these points but implying objectors are jealous/envious/evil is counterproductive).

"On a board that purports to attract entrepreneurs"

Entrepreneurs are fine with the idea that if their company crashes and burns they get nothing, so your juxtaposition is invalid.

Post reply on HN