Hacker News Reader

Comment by quizbiz | Hacker News Reader

About time something like this comes out. A humbling perspective.

I find myself unable to identify with -- or muster any empathy whatsoever -- for an individual who received $742,006.40 (post-tax) and can readily afford to donate it to charity without concern for his family's well-being despite the current economic climate.

Would it be different if he was a startup founder whose company got acquired by big finance? Just asking...

If said founder can sneeze at $700.000 dollars like that and write a whiney letter at the same time then nope, no difference to me. I have yet to see that, though.

I don't know what he was trying to achieve with that letter - for me it's just a disgusting testament to how money can detach people from reality.

Why? Has he done anything immoral or inhumane? Or do you simply resent the successful?

Now now, don't bring logic into this.

I can't speak for ankhmoop, but what bothers me here is the whiney letter.

I already knew that ridiculously overpaid jobs exist and that you usually get them by being born into the right family - or with an unusual amount of luck. I don't like that part of reality but I can't change it.

So, this guy has one of these jobs. Fine, someone has to do the dirty work after all!

But is there really a need to whine in public about his bonus troubles?

Especially in the current situation where many people reading his drivel have slightly bigger problems than figuring out whether to invest or donate their next million?

What he's complaining about is that he's been made a scapegoat for something that isn't his fault, been pressured to return all his payment (but $1.00) for a year of hard work, and has state AGs threatening to announce his name publicly as one of the evil AIG execs. I think his being upset is pretty reasonable.

Poor guy. Maybe he should take some of his $700k to a lawyer instead of crying for public sympathy. It's about the scales. He may have a legal right to be upset. But with presumably a few millions in the bank he should have the dignity to know that he 's still on the bright side of life.

Actually, many people get those jobs by working hard in high school to get into a prestigious college, and then working hard in college to get into a prestigious banking or accounting firm. What many see as luck is actually 10+ years of hard work.

His reaction to life's failings -- not his position of success -- demonstrates a remarkably ill-developed sense of decorum and tact in light of his financial position, the failure of AIG, and subsequent taxpayer bail-out.

I see your point. But assuming he had nothing to do with the derivative crisis, he is just basically cleaning up a mess made by someone else. And he has now effectively been paid nothing for his work.

Sure, he can afford it, and he was a senior vp at AIG, so I am sure there is a lot more he could have done. But he played an ancillary role in this crisis. And this is basically turning into a witch hunt. If he had been at some other bank, this wouldn't be happening to him.I would see some cases where I agree with him losing his bonuses, but not in this one.

It seems to me like the government is going after AIG only because of all the public outrage. I would like to see more signs criminal investigations starting, and system wide changes, I don't want the government to focus on just one company.

"Sure, he can afford it, and he was a senior vp at AIG, so I am sure there is a lot more he could have done."

Being a vice-president at a financial institution does not mean one has much executive power. For instance, a couple of years ago Goldman Sachs had over 300 vice-presidents. I don't know if AIG has the same hierarchy as Wall Street banks have (or had, since some have gone bust), but if such is the case, then a VP is not exactly a top dog, so to say.

"This is basically turning into a witch hunt"

It sure is! The politicians (mainly the democrats but also the republicans) have realized that the American people's sentiment is, all of a sudden, strongly against the financial institutions, and they're positioning themselves so they can profit politically from other people's misery. Politicians have no values, only re-election dreams.

>It seems to me like the government is going after AIG only because of all the public outrage.

This is very true. Honestly, I'd go so far as to call it a lack of leadership by Obama.

Did I read this article right... that he feels injustice for not receiving his bonus?

No, you read it completely wrong. He did recieve his bonus, and feels injustice at being pressured to return it when the financial crisis is nothing to do with him. So he's giving it to charity rather than return it to AIG.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com