I can't believe how much national press is devoted to a young California woman who lacks the political savvy to provide a nuanced answer to a question about the desirability of same-sex marriage. The pageant handlers were as flat-footed as she was. There were a million different ways she could have dodged the question without invoking her personal religious beliefs. She even could have said that her personal religious views are not appropriately discussed at such an event and that voters in individual states come to different conclusions on the issue. The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is, in my opinion, a statute that will one day be overturned by a rational Supreme Court relying mostly on centuries of precedent that a marriage performed in one state gets all of the same legal protection if the couple moves to any other state. Leave this woman alone. The last thing we need is another Joe the Plumber who evinces no understanding of any simple issue, let alone about a complex one.
The good news: the debate over whether to permit same-sex marriage is light years ahead of where I thought we would be in 2009. Sure, there a people with political agendas and people who spew hateful commentary about LGBT rights but most young people couldn't care less if a few million same-sex couples enter into a civil marriage.
If we give Miss USA runners-up a platform on this issue, where does it end? Will we have to give the fifth runner up 15 minutes on the Today Show to talk about where TARP money is properly spent or whether a functioning missile shield will forever destabilize diplomatic relations with Russia and China? Miss USA does not represent anyone. She won a contest that I believe comes along with some scholarship money and a free apartment in NYC for a year.
If we really want to have an intelligent conversation about the issue, ordinary citizens who don't enter contests are just as qualified to weigh in. More and more people are changing their minds because they see same-sex couples living the same (often boring) lives that they themselves lead. I congratulate Vermonters because I agree with what they did at the ballot box. Because I am convinced that DOMA will be overturned eventually, the only beauty pageant I care about involves selecting Supreme Court justices that expansively read the Constitution.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Iraqi Gay Bashing
Gay Iraqis? Well, of course there are gay Iraqis. It's simply a matter of percentages. Does anyone really think that war, organized (or disorganized) religion, poverty or general chaos has any impact on an individual's sexual orientation? I'm not a student of the Koran but I'm fairly certain that clerics will find a passage or two to make sure that they can gin up religious adherents to run out and identify, threaten, beat and kill men and women who have the audacity to be who they are.
Germany was pretty good at this sort of thing in the lead-up to and during WWII (this, by the way, is the origin of the pink triangle (worn by gays in concentration camps) that became an international symbol of the gay civil rights movement, long before the rainbow flag. The United States has had its own witch hunts, beatings and murders that still happen in the country that is often characterized as the leader of the free world.
The United States has made progress, some political and a great deal based on families and friends who have loved ones who are gay and lesbian and refuse to sanction this sort of discrimination. Even so, the gay marriage issue continues to divide the country and probably will for years to come.
But what about the Iraqis? We ought to be air lifting these people out that country and granting them polititcal asylum in the United States, Canada and other friendlier countries, if they choose to leave. Those who stay behind are looking at years - even decades - before they can walk down a street without worrying every minute that they will be beaten or killed. I am not at all optimistic that even President Obama can do much to deal with this issue. I hope I am wrong about that.
Whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage in the U.S. we should all be able to agree that truly civilized societies do not kill people over sexual orientation. It's not enough to say that Iraq has been prevented from establishing a normal civil society because of the destruction of war. It's not the only test, but a good test of whether a society is healthy is how it treats its minorities.
I am not ignoring the plight of women, whose civil and human rights are violated every day, all over the world. If that is an issue that you work on, keep doing it. It is just as important because the root of the problem is the same. When governments fail to use all of their resources to protect the most vulnerable of their citizens, they cannot claim that their societies are truly free.
The Iowa Supreme Court got it right when it said that even in the United States, lesbians and gays do not have the kind of political power that excuses the courts from scrutinizing their fight for civil rights in the way that they do when they evaluate claims of women and racial and ethnic minorities.
It's about time that we really acted like we're the leader of the free world. Work hard to show that we don't tolerate discrimination and don't be shy about calling on other nations to do the same.
Germany was pretty good at this sort of thing in the lead-up to and during WWII (this, by the way, is the origin of the pink triangle (worn by gays in concentration camps) that became an international symbol of the gay civil rights movement, long before the rainbow flag. The United States has had its own witch hunts, beatings and murders that still happen in the country that is often characterized as the leader of the free world.
The United States has made progress, some political and a great deal based on families and friends who have loved ones who are gay and lesbian and refuse to sanction this sort of discrimination. Even so, the gay marriage issue continues to divide the country and probably will for years to come.
But what about the Iraqis? We ought to be air lifting these people out that country and granting them polititcal asylum in the United States, Canada and other friendlier countries, if they choose to leave. Those who stay behind are looking at years - even decades - before they can walk down a street without worrying every minute that they will be beaten or killed. I am not at all optimistic that even President Obama can do much to deal with this issue. I hope I am wrong about that.
Whatever your opinion on same-sex marriage in the U.S. we should all be able to agree that truly civilized societies do not kill people over sexual orientation. It's not enough to say that Iraq has been prevented from establishing a normal civil society because of the destruction of war. It's not the only test, but a good test of whether a society is healthy is how it treats its minorities.
I am not ignoring the plight of women, whose civil and human rights are violated every day, all over the world. If that is an issue that you work on, keep doing it. It is just as important because the root of the problem is the same. When governments fail to use all of their resources to protect the most vulnerable of their citizens, they cannot claim that their societies are truly free.
The Iowa Supreme Court got it right when it said that even in the United States, lesbians and gays do not have the kind of political power that excuses the courts from scrutinizing their fight for civil rights in the way that they do when they evaluate claims of women and racial and ethnic minorities.
It's about time that we really acted like we're the leader of the free world. Work hard to show that we don't tolerate discrimination and don't be shy about calling on other nations to do the same.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
First Ladies
Jacqueline Kennedy once famously said to a confidante in late 1960 that she dreaded living in "...that dreary Maison Blanche..." and initially hated the idea of being referred to as the First Lady, deciding that it sounded "...more like the name of a good saddle horse than a person..."
She realized later that she had choices and in many ways reinvented the role in a way that suited her. Lady Bird Johnson did the same thing. Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush all attempted to play to their strengths and take an unelected, unpaid job and make it into something positive. So have most first ladies starting with Martha Washington.
It's no surprise then that there is so much focus on how Michelle Obama will decide to leave her mark and how successful she will be at doing it. The big difference in the last 15 years is that media images are no longer susceptible to White House control. The Internet and the proliferation of television programs that trot out 24/7 punditry that masquerades as useful news make her job a much tougher one than many of her predecessors. And, of course, since she is African-American, there is an added burden. Her natural detractors will look for her to stumble and will find ways to explain any perceived misstep as proof that she is not what she appears to be.
Consider the frenzy when Mrs. Obama laid a gentle hand on the Queen of England. Forget that the Queen had already touched the First Lady of the most powerful nation on Earth. Other than royalist Tories who spend their lives worrying about that sort of minutae, who else cares? Come on. Why in the world - especially now - do we focus on such an absolutely innocuous moment? If you think that I am overstating the buzz, go to AOL and read some of the incredibly racist, despicable reader comments that I hope Mrs. Obama never hears about or reads.
If allowed to go her own way, I predict that Michelle Obama will be a positive transformational figure in American and global politics. She probably already knows what a slice of the population is saying and is well-prepared from her own life experience to brush it off and move forward.
I had a history teacher in high school who once said to my class that - in her mind - we all started off in her class as A+ students but it was up to us to maintain that grade. She wasn't kidding. It inspired a number of B students to end up as A students.
In my book, Michelle Obama starts out with an A+. Given her success in life thus far, I am convinced she'll end up in 8 years with the same grade. I won't lower her grade because she returned a gesture to a member of the British royal family or wore a dress that I wouldn't have chosen for her.
These are serious times. It's time for serious people to pull the political debate to serious subjects. Listen to the First Lady's remarks to young women at an all-girls school in London. That was a serious speech on a very important topic: getting young women to believe in themselves and to pursue as much education as they can. I don't remember what she wore. I remember the message that was delivered in a way that even her husband - a master orator - couldn't have done better. We should be very, very proud that she has put herself out there to represent us.
She realized later that she had choices and in many ways reinvented the role in a way that suited her. Lady Bird Johnson did the same thing. Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush all attempted to play to their strengths and take an unelected, unpaid job and make it into something positive. So have most first ladies starting with Martha Washington.
It's no surprise then that there is so much focus on how Michelle Obama will decide to leave her mark and how successful she will be at doing it. The big difference in the last 15 years is that media images are no longer susceptible to White House control. The Internet and the proliferation of television programs that trot out 24/7 punditry that masquerades as useful news make her job a much tougher one than many of her predecessors. And, of course, since she is African-American, there is an added burden. Her natural detractors will look for her to stumble and will find ways to explain any perceived misstep as proof that she is not what she appears to be.
Consider the frenzy when Mrs. Obama laid a gentle hand on the Queen of England. Forget that the Queen had already touched the First Lady of the most powerful nation on Earth. Other than royalist Tories who spend their lives worrying about that sort of minutae, who else cares? Come on. Why in the world - especially now - do we focus on such an absolutely innocuous moment? If you think that I am overstating the buzz, go to AOL and read some of the incredibly racist, despicable reader comments that I hope Mrs. Obama never hears about or reads.
If allowed to go her own way, I predict that Michelle Obama will be a positive transformational figure in American and global politics. She probably already knows what a slice of the population is saying and is well-prepared from her own life experience to brush it off and move forward.
I had a history teacher in high school who once said to my class that - in her mind - we all started off in her class as A+ students but it was up to us to maintain that grade. She wasn't kidding. It inspired a number of B students to end up as A students.
In my book, Michelle Obama starts out with an A+. Given her success in life thus far, I am convinced she'll end up in 8 years with the same grade. I won't lower her grade because she returned a gesture to a member of the British royal family or wore a dress that I wouldn't have chosen for her.
These are serious times. It's time for serious people to pull the political debate to serious subjects. Listen to the First Lady's remarks to young women at an all-girls school in London. That was a serious speech on a very important topic: getting young women to believe in themselves and to pursue as much education as they can. I don't remember what she wore. I remember the message that was delivered in a way that even her husband - a master orator - couldn't have done better. We should be very, very proud that she has put herself out there to represent us.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Don't be too surprised about Iowa
As many of you already know, the Iowa Supreme Court just decided that the state had to permit same-sex marriages because under the Iowa (not federal) constitution, the failure to extend those rights to same-sex couples did not serve an important government interest (sometimes referred to as "intermediate scrutiny" of government action and unreasonably deprived these couples of equal protection guaranteed by that state's constitution.
Three things to remember:
1) States can always grant better civil rights than the federal government (one of the better examples is that New York State's highest court was nearly three years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court in that a woman, with her doctor, had a right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy.)
2) It doesn't always hurt to ask for your rights in court. The strategic question is when. Plaintiffs in Iowa must have done some pretty amazing research and came up with a winning legal strategy and some confidence that the Iowa court would be receptive.
3) Court appointments matter, whether they involve the local Justice of the Peace or the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. These people are human beings after all and it is vitally important to add your voice to those in the position to select (or in some cases elect) judges.
Prediction: Iowa will still grow a lot of corn and retain its important role in Presidential primaries; upholding this right won't harm anyone in Iowa or anywhere else. Don't pray for a different result. For those who will undoubtedly oppose this, go to your local church and pray for yourselves. Try to focus on the Love Thy Neighbor piece. That is what this is all about.
Three things to remember:
1) States can always grant better civil rights than the federal government (one of the better examples is that New York State's highest court was nearly three years ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court in that a woman, with her doctor, had a right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy.)
2) It doesn't always hurt to ask for your rights in court. The strategic question is when. Plaintiffs in Iowa must have done some pretty amazing research and came up with a winning legal strategy and some confidence that the Iowa court would be receptive.
3) Court appointments matter, whether they involve the local Justice of the Peace or the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. These people are human beings after all and it is vitally important to add your voice to those in the position to select (or in some cases elect) judges.
Prediction: Iowa will still grow a lot of corn and retain its important role in Presidential primaries; upholding this right won't harm anyone in Iowa or anywhere else. Don't pray for a different result. For those who will undoubtedly oppose this, go to your local church and pray for yourselves. Try to focus on the Love Thy Neighbor piece. That is what this is all about.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Obamanomics
I'm soliciting opinions. Is the Obama administration doing the right thing in dealing with the economy? I see some places where I believe the administration is fumbling and places where it is doing what it needs to do.
I'm nervous about the American auto industry, particularly when the administration seems to be making corporate decisions in exchange for stimulus money. Is conditioning the receipt of stimulus cash on the resignation of the CEO of GM prudent? I know the main argument in favor - that if we are going to take an ownership interest in a failing automaker, the government should act like a shareholder and be active in guiding the company. How far does this argument go, though? Will the Treasury Department decide what cars GM will sell? Will it help to price the vehicles? Will it dictate the number of employees GM needs to do all of this? I'm not sure the federal government has the expertise to make those kinds of calls. Even with an Auto Industry Czar, how can we be certain that our representatives will do a better job than institutional private investors who employ industry analysts that constantly track the health of a company.
Would it be a better use of stimulus money to encourage purchasers to buy American with larger tax credits, particularly for those buying smaller (let's face it, less profitable), more fuel efficient vehicles (including foreign makes that are built in the U.S.), or does that amount to naked protectionism that will result in a downward spiral of global protectionism?
I think about the old adage that a little knowledge can be dangerous. Because of the urgency of the problem (and the threat of bankruptcy that would leave unionized and non-unionized workers with very little protection) I am trying not be overly critical of an administration that works for the guy I voted for. I am suspicious of the Republican message that we ought to go down the bankruptcy road.
The big problem, beyond people being unable to afford any new car, much less an SUV, is that GM, Ford and Chrysler have never really crawled out of the trench of lower resale values and the widely-held perception that American cars are not nearly as reliable, well-built or fun to drive as Hondas, Toyotas and other Japanese and German brands. If they can change that perception, I think they can be profitable with or without federal assistance. No government program is going to change those perceptions.
What do you think?
I'm nervous about the American auto industry, particularly when the administration seems to be making corporate decisions in exchange for stimulus money. Is conditioning the receipt of stimulus cash on the resignation of the CEO of GM prudent? I know the main argument in favor - that if we are going to take an ownership interest in a failing automaker, the government should act like a shareholder and be active in guiding the company. How far does this argument go, though? Will the Treasury Department decide what cars GM will sell? Will it help to price the vehicles? Will it dictate the number of employees GM needs to do all of this? I'm not sure the federal government has the expertise to make those kinds of calls. Even with an Auto Industry Czar, how can we be certain that our representatives will do a better job than institutional private investors who employ industry analysts that constantly track the health of a company.
Would it be a better use of stimulus money to encourage purchasers to buy American with larger tax credits, particularly for those buying smaller (let's face it, less profitable), more fuel efficient vehicles (including foreign makes that are built in the U.S.), or does that amount to naked protectionism that will result in a downward spiral of global protectionism?
I think about the old adage that a little knowledge can be dangerous. Because of the urgency of the problem (and the threat of bankruptcy that would leave unionized and non-unionized workers with very little protection) I am trying not be overly critical of an administration that works for the guy I voted for. I am suspicious of the Republican message that we ought to go down the bankruptcy road.
The big problem, beyond people being unable to afford any new car, much less an SUV, is that GM, Ford and Chrysler have never really crawled out of the trench of lower resale values and the widely-held perception that American cars are not nearly as reliable, well-built or fun to drive as Hondas, Toyotas and other Japanese and German brands. If they can change that perception, I think they can be profitable with or without federal assistance. No government program is going to change those perceptions.
What do you think?
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Bonus III
Click on the following link. It expresses my opinion on the Bonus furor better than anything I could write myself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=AIG%20&st=cse
This piece, published in the New York Times on March 25th, comes from an executive vice president at AIG who was involved in its financial products division. The upshot is this: he took a $1 per year salary and was promised a now-dreaded and reviled "retention bonus" to stay with AIG and attempt to help the company minimizes its losses in 2008. The author had nothing to do with the credit default swaps that were the primary cause of AIG's downfall.
Let's start with the premise that someone who makes a million dollars per year is not inherently evil or greedy. If I'm wrong, let's throw away all of our televisions because most of the folks we watch on major networks are earning that kind of money. After all, no one wants to be accused of being a hypocrite.
If we can get past that hurdle, what is really making us so angry about AIG retention bonuses? Is it the fact that most of us will never be offered one? Is it because we know all we need to know about the thousands of employees and what their role was at AIG (including the AIG guy who might have sold you car insurance)? Wouldn't we rather know more about the folks in the credit default swap game, at what level they worked (i.e., should we punish the administrative assistant who worked for one of the "bad guys"?) and from whom they got their marching orders?
It is quite possible that there are scores of AIG folks who are truly responsible for the mess they created. It is not remotely possible this mess was a conspiracy of thousands of employees.
To me, this was a case of a lazy government winking at or turning a blind eye to potential disaster. Bundling up and selling off mortgage risk as an investment product was clever indeed, but it took a lot more than AIG to make it all happen. It took shady real estate appraisers, mortgage brokers, banks and the purchasers themselves to get us where we are today. Sub-prime mortgages, backed by nothing more than a hope of ever-increasing real estate values and the ability of borrowers to keep flipping their property, were the ultimate modern scam. Much of what was happening should have been heavily regulated or criminalized. I've said it before, but I wouldn't waste much time worrying about AIG bonuses. I'd spend my time writing to my representatives in Congress and asking them to explain why they were either too disinterested to know what was going on or unwilling to do the politically unpopular thing and pass laws that might have kept a few million people from buying their dream house, but would have avoided millions of foreclosures. Don't expect them to express any remorse or regret. They'll tell you that you should be angry at AIG because that's easier. And no, your representatives will not return the campaign contributions from employees at AIG or any other financial institution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=AIG%20&st=cse
This piece, published in the New York Times on March 25th, comes from an executive vice president at AIG who was involved in its financial products division. The upshot is this: he took a $1 per year salary and was promised a now-dreaded and reviled "retention bonus" to stay with AIG and attempt to help the company minimizes its losses in 2008. The author had nothing to do with the credit default swaps that were the primary cause of AIG's downfall.
Let's start with the premise that someone who makes a million dollars per year is not inherently evil or greedy. If I'm wrong, let's throw away all of our televisions because most of the folks we watch on major networks are earning that kind of money. After all, no one wants to be accused of being a hypocrite.
If we can get past that hurdle, what is really making us so angry about AIG retention bonuses? Is it the fact that most of us will never be offered one? Is it because we know all we need to know about the thousands of employees and what their role was at AIG (including the AIG guy who might have sold you car insurance)? Wouldn't we rather know more about the folks in the credit default swap game, at what level they worked (i.e., should we punish the administrative assistant who worked for one of the "bad guys"?) and from whom they got their marching orders?
It is quite possible that there are scores of AIG folks who are truly responsible for the mess they created. It is not remotely possible this mess was a conspiracy of thousands of employees.
To me, this was a case of a lazy government winking at or turning a blind eye to potential disaster. Bundling up and selling off mortgage risk as an investment product was clever indeed, but it took a lot more than AIG to make it all happen. It took shady real estate appraisers, mortgage brokers, banks and the purchasers themselves to get us where we are today. Sub-prime mortgages, backed by nothing more than a hope of ever-increasing real estate values and the ability of borrowers to keep flipping their property, were the ultimate modern scam. Much of what was happening should have been heavily regulated or criminalized. I've said it before, but I wouldn't waste much time worrying about AIG bonuses. I'd spend my time writing to my representatives in Congress and asking them to explain why they were either too disinterested to know what was going on or unwilling to do the politically unpopular thing and pass laws that might have kept a few million people from buying their dream house, but would have avoided millions of foreclosures. Don't expect them to express any remorse or regret. They'll tell you that you should be angry at AIG because that's easier. And no, your representatives will not return the campaign contributions from employees at AIG or any other financial institution.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Bonus II
In an earlier post, I wrote about the announcement of Wall Street bonuses and got some thoughtful feedback from a couple of followers of this blog (see "Bonus" on this page). I don't think anyone (and I truly mean anyone) fully understands the compensation packages of many jobs, particularly where there is no contract (union or individual) to help make sense of it.
I do know that in a market economy like ours, it seems as if careers like public and private primary and secondary school teaching are undervalued from a compensation perspective. Why then do so many college graduates continue to choose to teach? If we reach back to the 1950s and 60s, it's easier to understand. Many other careers were practically closed off to smart, well-educated women. Nursing, teaching, social work and a very small number of other professions attracted most of the smartest female college graduates. The salaries were pathetically low by today's standards but without other meaningful opportunities, the market permitted school districts and religious institutions to get these young women (and quite a few men) to work for them for peanuts. But let's not forget that teaching has intrinsic rewards and has historically been one of the most stable, family-friendly jobs in the country. Defined benefit public employee pensions (often non-contributory) make retired teachers some of the best protected among our elderly. It's easy to say that they deserve that kind of protection because they chose to forgo opportunities to make more salary in another field but with reduced job security and increased risk of having a less generous retirement income.
The best and brightest women today can and do often choose to work in money management jobs, including investment banking, abandoning the notion of lifetime employment with one employer, lower pension guarantees, practically zero job security and punishing 80 hour work weeks. The annual bonus - whether delivered in cash or stock options - often accounts for 60-80% of their overall compensation. In the fat middle (the VP and AVP level where most of men and women in institutional finance work) much of the bonus gets socked away for retirement. I don't know what the average compensation is but in order for a 55 year old banker (who, by the way, likely has to pay 3-4 times the average for housing because they are forced to work in New York, Boston or Chicago) to buy an annuity that would provide them with a lifetime income equivalent to a teacher's pension, with continued health care coverage, would likely have to amass at least $1-2 million in cash. When one considers the 80 hour work weeks and the risk that bonuses paid in stock options might be worthless (ask a Bear Stearns employee who had all of his/her retirement accounts in now worthless company stock), it should surprise no one that these individuals can make a good case for getting a healthy end-year bonus if they have worked hard and followed the direction of the top company executives.
Men and women working in the auto industry, unlike public school teaching and investment banking, have increasingly gotten the worst of both worlds - decent but not spectacular hourly pay for current workers, a lower entry wage for new hires, but no guarantee of job security and a pension that might or might not include retiree health benefits, particularly if the auto manufacturer goes bankrupt. The old social contract with these workers died long ago. Even so, when the auto manufacturers asked for a bail out, many people reacted with disdain not just for the top executives but for the workers themselves. I suppose that we should have expected the workers to refuse to build gas guzzling SUVs because they should have known that crude oil prices would spike and the home mortgage industry would start an economic recession that would further reduce demand for the types of vehicles that had been so profitable for so long.
My point is this: we have collectively become the judge and jury of what an individual's work is worth, regardless of the product or service they deliver. That, my friends, is not how market capitalism works. I will agree that no one necessarily deserves a $20 million dollar bonus. I cannot agree that an exceptional employee in the ranks of middle management doesn't deserve a $1 million bonus even if the top company executives made mistakes in the overall direction of the company.
AIG made some egregiously poor institutional decisions - particularly in greedily selling "insurance" to banks that it could never have afforded to pay out if the economy went sour. But the middle managers who sold those products did nothing illegal and to the extent they did their part well, deserve the compensation promised to them. Teachers whose school boards and management give them a curriculum and blackboard still deserve their salary and pension benefits if they do their jobs acceptably, even if it doesn't translate into higher test scores. Auto workers who dutifully show up for work each day and drop 400hp engines into Hummers that get 9 mpg deserve their compensation even if the car can't be sold.
Bonuses didn't get us into this mess. Congress's utter failure to regulate the industry over the past decade is a big part of what got us here. I'll bet you that they wouldn't forgo their salary for failing to legislate away some of the legal but stupid things going on in the finance industry.
I do know that in a market economy like ours, it seems as if careers like public and private primary and secondary school teaching are undervalued from a compensation perspective. Why then do so many college graduates continue to choose to teach? If we reach back to the 1950s and 60s, it's easier to understand. Many other careers were practically closed off to smart, well-educated women. Nursing, teaching, social work and a very small number of other professions attracted most of the smartest female college graduates. The salaries were pathetically low by today's standards but without other meaningful opportunities, the market permitted school districts and religious institutions to get these young women (and quite a few men) to work for them for peanuts. But let's not forget that teaching has intrinsic rewards and has historically been one of the most stable, family-friendly jobs in the country. Defined benefit public employee pensions (often non-contributory) make retired teachers some of the best protected among our elderly. It's easy to say that they deserve that kind of protection because they chose to forgo opportunities to make more salary in another field but with reduced job security and increased risk of having a less generous retirement income.
The best and brightest women today can and do often choose to work in money management jobs, including investment banking, abandoning the notion of lifetime employment with one employer, lower pension guarantees, practically zero job security and punishing 80 hour work weeks. The annual bonus - whether delivered in cash or stock options - often accounts for 60-80% of their overall compensation. In the fat middle (the VP and AVP level where most of men and women in institutional finance work) much of the bonus gets socked away for retirement. I don't know what the average compensation is but in order for a 55 year old banker (who, by the way, likely has to pay 3-4 times the average for housing because they are forced to work in New York, Boston or Chicago) to buy an annuity that would provide them with a lifetime income equivalent to a teacher's pension, with continued health care coverage, would likely have to amass at least $1-2 million in cash. When one considers the 80 hour work weeks and the risk that bonuses paid in stock options might be worthless (ask a Bear Stearns employee who had all of his/her retirement accounts in now worthless company stock), it should surprise no one that these individuals can make a good case for getting a healthy end-year bonus if they have worked hard and followed the direction of the top company executives.
Men and women working in the auto industry, unlike public school teaching and investment banking, have increasingly gotten the worst of both worlds - decent but not spectacular hourly pay for current workers, a lower entry wage for new hires, but no guarantee of job security and a pension that might or might not include retiree health benefits, particularly if the auto manufacturer goes bankrupt. The old social contract with these workers died long ago. Even so, when the auto manufacturers asked for a bail out, many people reacted with disdain not just for the top executives but for the workers themselves. I suppose that we should have expected the workers to refuse to build gas guzzling SUVs because they should have known that crude oil prices would spike and the home mortgage industry would start an economic recession that would further reduce demand for the types of vehicles that had been so profitable for so long.
My point is this: we have collectively become the judge and jury of what an individual's work is worth, regardless of the product or service they deliver. That, my friends, is not how market capitalism works. I will agree that no one necessarily deserves a $20 million dollar bonus. I cannot agree that an exceptional employee in the ranks of middle management doesn't deserve a $1 million bonus even if the top company executives made mistakes in the overall direction of the company.
AIG made some egregiously poor institutional decisions - particularly in greedily selling "insurance" to banks that it could never have afforded to pay out if the economy went sour. But the middle managers who sold those products did nothing illegal and to the extent they did their part well, deserve the compensation promised to them. Teachers whose school boards and management give them a curriculum and blackboard still deserve their salary and pension benefits if they do their jobs acceptably, even if it doesn't translate into higher test scores. Auto workers who dutifully show up for work each day and drop 400hp engines into Hummers that get 9 mpg deserve their compensation even if the car can't be sold.
Bonuses didn't get us into this mess. Congress's utter failure to regulate the industry over the past decade is a big part of what got us here. I'll bet you that they wouldn't forgo their salary for failing to legislate away some of the legal but stupid things going on in the finance industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)