If you are implying that I somehow resent people that make more money than me, you are only half right. I resent people that make more money than me by deception and not through hard work. I resent people that play the victim card at any criticism. I also resent the entitlement mentality that Wallstreet has: “I work at a big financial company, and I deserve a rich lifestyle, no matter what the company performance is”. Or maybe it’s the outrage against Wallstreet companies taking TARP money when they have unmet tax burdens. Or maybe it’s the outrage against the executives that still try to spend millions on renovating executive offices, or buying jets, or spending thousands on an executive refrigerator. There is a collective pattern of entitlement rampant in the executives of these companies. They believe because they are executives, they deserve these perks. The disconnect comes when you look at the spending and lifestyles, and it simply doesn’t match the performance of the company.

Allow me to elaborate on that disconnect, because I don’t think you’ve caught the meaning yet. I called you on your sense of entitlement, and you didn’t deny it. You replied with the very comfortable position of “richly compensated”, (“…applies themselves, works hard and helps others deserves to be richly compensated”). See, that euphemism for what it is. A vague term defined very differently by any number of readers. It is a deft literary maneuver to disguise differences in estimation. Rich compensation for some may include the platitudes of the community, a happy home life, a secure house or occasional vacation. Rich compensation for others is obviously something else. The problem with vague descriptions is that they leave all kinds of room for wiggle, everyone gets to be correct. Does renovating two office building levels for a new executive sound like rich compensation or hubris (Bank of America)? Does a +$700,000 bonus sound like richly compensated or incredibly naive? How much more different would this situation have been, had A.I.G. told the exec no bonuses for the year, and we’re going to cut your salary. Why did the executive stick around for Bonus pay, instead of the salaried wage? Why did the executive rely upon something that is generally considered a MERIT bonus, not a THANKS FOR BEING HERE bonus? Did the executive really believe that A.I.G. was in a place to afford bonuses?

Your first post starts out telling us we shouldn’t be upset at the rich for being rich. Then you tell us about New York Life and their good times at the moment, and at the end, you defend the A.I.G. guy like he’s a saint. You point out it was the leadership at A.I.G. that caused this mess, not the executive V.P. that wrote the Op-Ed. It isn’t like it is the job of the officers of the company to steer it correctly. If he didn’t use his, obviously, expensive education to right A.I.G. business fortunes, or come out against CDS in his own office, or have the skills or training to see the illusion for what it was, why should we have the public footing the bill to pay his bonus? Sure I chose my career, and he chose his career. His career gets to deal with far more high-flying drops than my career. And he chooses to whine about how he’s fine, in fact, he’s SO fine he can give away over $700,000 to charity in one go. Good for him, I suppose. His bonus could have paid the yearly salaries of for fourteen 50k a year teachers, or nurses.

I won’t hold it against you for devoting two paragraphs at attempting to make this discussion about my career choice. We’re discussing the A.I.G. exec’s op-ed, you defended him by blaming the A.I.G. leadership. I said that reeks of entitlement. Just because that exec chose his industry he should be entitled to his bonus? Nope, doesn’t sit well with me. And if you are against the bail-outs and subsidies that you claimed, why defend him at all? He is an Executive Vice President of a company that made bad decisions. He shares some responsibility for that failure whether he chooses to accept it, or not.

His contract is inviolate, is that the gist? And you are telling people to not be upset with greed?

His salary, by his own admission was $1, with bonuses to be paid. By your contract logic he is "entitled" to $1 salary for the work done, the bonuses come after. Is that a fair contract? That all his work was worth $1? If he didn't think that was fair, he should not have opted to take that contract.

Now that the contract portion is covered, we can talk about "bonuses". Correct me if this is a wrong definition for bonuses, but bonuses are compensation that go above and beyond the salary. These are rewards for exemplary work, yeah? Not entitled to just because they did the job, right? If A.I.G. meant that +$700k to be a salary and not a bonus, they should have contracted as such.

And now greed... a big question here: "Is greed good?" You know, most religions say it isn't. Most moral codes say greed isn't good, either. Yet our capitalistic society says greed is good. And we throw our hands up in the air if someone mentions changing that capitalistic society. I refrain from calling it good or evil, I accept that humans are greedy. I accept that people will be greedy and act in greedy self-interest. I do not accept greedy humans that get whiny when their greed isn't satisfied. I also refuse to accept that a greedy person has rights over me, just because of their greed. Their greed does not entitle them to success, their hard work does.