You think this has to do more with cultural differences due to Goldman's historical roots as a partnership, or with structural differences in the banking vs technology industries?
I think you're right that part of the explanation is that the investment banks, having evolved from partnerships, don't really care what shareholders think. What I find interesting is the acqui-hire phenomenon. Instead of paying a $10 million signing bonus for a top prospect, they acquire his company just for him and his team with no intention of using the company's product.
And has this been true historically for the banking industry? Or did the workers claw more and more of the compensation over time?
Definitely true historically. Probably even more so. All the big banks used to be partnerships (like law firms) not public companies beholden to stockholders.